Crl. Misc. No. M-40359 of 2007 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 29.09.2011 (1) Crl. Misc. No. M-16487 of 2007 (O&M) M/s Aradhna Soft Drinks Company & another .......... Petitioners Versus The Union Territory of Chandigarh & another ...... Respondents **** (2) Crl. Misc. No. M-40359 of 2007 (O&M) Hindustan Lever Limited,(now known as Hindustan Unilever Limited) .......... Petitioner Versus Govt. Food Inspector, Hoshiarpur & another ...... Respondents **** (3) Crl. Misc. No. M-46877 of 2007 (O&M) Hindustan Lever Limited .......... Petitioner Versus Govt. Food Inspector, Hoshiarpur & another ...... Respondents **** (4) Crl. Misc. No. M-46879 of 2007 (O&M) Chaman Lal .......... Petitioner Versus Govt. Food Inspector, Chandigarh ...... Respondent **** (5) Crl. Misc. No. M-46880 of 2007 (O&M) Satish Goel .......... Petitioner Versus Govt. Food Inspector, Patiala ...... Respondent Crl. Misc. No. M-40359 of 2007 -2- (6) Crl. Misc. No. M-47111 of 2007 (O&M) Hindustan Lever Limited .......... Petitioner Versus Govt. Food Inspector, Hoshiarpur & another ...... Respondents **** (7) Crl. Misc. No. M-47112 of 2007 (O&M) Hindustan Lever Limited .......... Petitioner Versus Govt. Food Inspector, Mansa & another ...... Respondents **** (8) Crl. Misc. No. M-2358 of 2008 (O&M) Kesar Chand .......... Petitioner Versus Govt. Food Inspector, Mansa & another ...... Respondents **** (9) Crl. Misc. No. M-14747 of 2009 (O&M) Hindustan Lever Limited .......... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...... Respondent **** (10) Crl. Misc. No. M-14749 of 2009 (O&M) Hindustan Lever Limited .......... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...... Respondent **** (11) Crl. Misc. No. M-15533 of 2009 (O&M) Hindustan Lever Limited .......... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...... Respondent Crl. Misc. No. M-40359 of 2007 -3- (12) Crl. Misc. No. M-15534 of 2009 (O&M) Hindustan Lever Limited .......... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...... Respondent **** (13) Crl. Misc. No. M-15535 of 2009 (O&M) Hindustan Lever Limited .......... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...... Respondent **** (14) Crl. Misc. No. M-18748 of 2009 (O&M) Hindustan Lever Limited .......... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...... Respondent **** (15) Crl. Misc. No. M-1545 of 2010 (O&M) Epic Food Products Pvt. Ltd. & others .......... Petitioners Versus State of Haryana & another ...... Respondents **** (16) Crl. Misc. No. M-1828 of 2010 (O&M) Dharminder Kumar .......... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...... Respondent **** (17) Crl. Misc. No. M-15485 of 2010 (O&M) Omesh Kumar .......... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & another ...... Respondents **** Crl. Misc. No. M-40359 of 2007 -4- (18) Crl. Misc. No. M-33453 of 2010 (O&M) Rajinder Singh .......... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & another ...... Respondents **** CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present:- Mr. Ashim Aggarwal, Advocate Mr. R.K. Garg, Advocate, Mr. R.K. Tirkha, Mr. Deepak Suri, Advocate Mr. Pawan Girdhar, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Sukant Gupta, Addl. P.P. for U.T., Chandigarh. Mr. Hemant Bassi, Advocate for U.T. Chandigarh. Mr. G.S. Brar, Asstt. A.G., Punjab. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) By this order I propose to dispose of Crl. Misc. No. M-16487 of 2007, CRM No. M-40359 of 2007, Crl. Misc. No. M-46877 of 2007, Crl. Misc. No. M-46879 of 2007, Crl. Misc. No. M-46880 of 2007, Crl. Misc. No. M-47112 of 2007, Crl. Misc. No. M-2358 of 2008, Crl. Misc. No. M-14747 of 2009, Crl. Misc. No. M-14749 of 2009, Crl. Misc. No. M-15533 of 2009, Crl. Misc. No. M-15534 of 2009, Crl. Misc. No. M-15535 of 2009, Crl. Misc. No. M-18748 of 2009, Crl. Misc. No. M-1545 of 2010, Crl. Misc. No. M-1828 of 2010,Crl. Misc. No. M-15485 of 2010 and Crl. Misc. No. M-33453 of 2010 and, the titles of these cases have been mentioned in the heading of the case, as the counsel for the parties agree that the issue involved in these cases is similar, which is with regard to the misbranding on the ground that the address given on the label of the brand in question is incomplete as the manufactures have failed to give the name of the State on the packet and have only mentioned the Pin Code. Crl. Misc. No. M-40359 of 2007 -5- CRM No. M-40359 of 2007 is taken as the case for the purpose of dictating facts. Sample of a Red Label Tea, which is manufactured by Hindustan Lever Limited,(now known as Hindustan Unilever Limited) was taken from the shop of respondent No.2 on 22.11.2005 by the Government Food Inspector, Hoshiarpur-respondent No.1. The said sample was sent to the Public Analyst, Punjab, Chandigarh for analysis under the provisions of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). On analysis, the report dated 20.12.2005, was submitted wherein it was found that the sample, although, was according to the standards prescribed but the product had not been labeled in accordance with the provisions of Rule 32 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (for short 'P.F.A. Rules, 1955) as the complete address of its manufacturer (i.e. name of the State) was not given on the packet. Hence, the sample was declared as misbranded. On the basis of this report, complaint against the petitioner was filed by the Food Inspector-respondent No.1 in the Court of Sub Judicial Magistrate, Garshankar, Distt. Hoshiarpur dated 8.9.2006. The petitioner was summoned on the basis of the report submitted by the Food Analyst. It is at that stage that the petitioner preferred the present petition challenging the very basis of the complaint and the summoning order, on the ground that there was no violation of the provisions of Rule 32 of the P.F.A. Rules, 1955. During the course of hearing of this case on 13.02.2009 along with other cases, it was the contention of the counsel for the petitioners that merely because name of the State was not mentioned in address on the packet of the sample, there was no misbranding as the name of manufacturer, city and Postal Index Number (Pin Code) was mentioned thereon. His submission was that from the Pin Code, the consumers / Crl. Misc. No. M-40359 of 2007 -6- implementing authorities under the P.F.A. Rules, 1955, could easily find out the location of the manufacturing premises and could take action against them, if there was any violation and, in any case, the requirement of Rule 32 of the P.F.A. Rules, 1955 is only for the purpose that the correct location and place of the manufacturer and manufacturing premises should be known to one and all. The learned Single Judge expressed reservation with a view taken in Hasmukh Mewada v. State of Punjab, 2008(3) Law Herald (P&H) 2491 on which decision reliance was placed by the counsel for the petitioner by observing that requirement of furnishing complete address of the manufacturer in terms of Rule 32(c)(1) of the P.F.A. Rules, 1955, includes the name of the State for the common consumer and as the instant question is likely to arise in a number of cases it be examined by a larger Bench. Considering the reference and the relevant provisions of the Act, P.F.A. Rules, 1955, the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (for short 'the 1976 Act') and The Standard of Weights and Measures Act (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 (for short 'the 1977 Rules'), the Division Bench vide its order dated 18.7.2011 answered the reference in the following terms :- “We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Firstly, we need to examine the relation between the two Statutes i.e. the Act and the Rules framed there under and the 1976 Act and the Rules framed there under. Section 3 of the 1976 Act gives overriding effect to the provisions of such Statute over any other law in the event of any inconsistency. Rule 6 framed under the aforesaid 1977 Rules as in force w.e.f. 06.07.1999 provides for the disclosure of name and address of the manufacturer or where manufacturer is not a packer, the name and address of the manufacturer and packer. The said part is not inconsistent with the Rules. Rule 6 has been amended Crl. Misc. No. M-40359 of 2007 -7- w.e.f. 25.03.2003 to the effect that the provisions of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and the rules made there under shall apply in respect of packages containing food articles. Rule 6 has been further amended vide notification No.GSR425 (E) dated 17.07.2006 w.e.f. 13.01.2007, inserting Explanation III, which is to the effect that in respect of packages containing food articles, the provisions of this clause shall not apply and instead the requirement of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (37 of 1954) and the rules made there under shall apply. Thus at any stage, there is no inconsistency in the provisions of the Act with the 1976 Act or Rule 6 so framed. However, there is no clause in Rule 10, that such Rule shall not apply in relation to food article and that the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act or the Rules made there under shall apply as provided for in Rule 6 after amendment in the year 2003 and clarified in the year 2007. There is no inconsistency in the Act and Rules with any provisions of the 1976 Act till 06.07.1999. As a matter of fact, the Explanation inserted effecting from 06.07.1999 in the 1977 Rules is pari materia with the Explanation II inserted in the Rules w.e.f. 29.04.1989. The provisions of the Act and the Rules framed there under are differently worded than the provisions of Rule 10 as amended vide Notification dated 17.07.2006 effective from 13.01.2007. The ‘complete address’ as defined under Rule 10 means the Postal Address or even the Postal Index Number. Therefore, in terms of Section 3 of the 1976 Act, the provisions of Rule 10 providing for printing of Postal Address or Postal Index Number shall be deemed to be complete address for the purpose of Act or the Rules framed there under as well from 13.1.2007. However, in none of the present set of cases the said questions arises. Thus, for the period relevant in the present cases, there is no inconsistency in the two statutes and rules framed there under. Coming to the question; as to whether the name of State is bound to be disclosed so as to meet the requirement of Rule 32(c)(i), it needs to be noticed that Rule 32 has been framed with a view to prevent the public or the purchaser Crl. Misc. No. M-40359 of 2007 -8- being deceived or misled as to character, quality or quantity of the article in terms of Section 23 (1A) (d) of the Act. Though the Postal Index Number is meant to facilitate delivery of postal articles by the Postal Authorities, but the fact remains that such Postal Index Number is widely in use after the same was introduced in the year 1972. The Postal Index Number denotes not only the region, but also the State and also the postal area, where the manufacturing unit or the distributor is located. Such Postal Index Number is not an internal guideline shrouded in secrecy, but is widely publicized document propagated to be used by all users of postal articles. Therefore, the printing of Pin code is sufficient to identify the location of the manufacturer or packer, as the case may be, which specifies the purpose of Rules contemplated by a Statute. The requirement of Rule is to examined keeping in view expectations of the reasonable average citizen. The view of this Court in Harkirat Singh, Hasmukh Mewada and Mohini Tea Leaves cases (supra), that address given by the manufacturer or the packer, which includes the Pin code and as thus, the Food Inspector or any person authorized on the Rules have no difficulty in locating the address cannot be said to be against the objective and purpose of the Rules. The substance of the Rule is satisfied, when the name of the manufacturer and the address, which may be Pin code is sufficient to identify and locate the manufacturer. It is the substance, which is important and not the form thereof. Therefore, in our view the expression ‘complete address’ appearing in Rule 32(c)(i) of the Rules, does not necessarily include the name of the State as well. Therefore, we approve the ratio of the judgments of this Court in Harkirat Singh, Hasmukh Mewada and Mohini Tea Leaves cases (supra) and answer the reference accordingly. Question of law having been answered, let the petitions be placed before the learned Single Bench for appropriate decision in accordance with law.” Crl. Misc. No. M-40359 of 2007 -9- In view of the above, the contention as raised by the counsel for the petitioner, in the present petition, requires to be accepted as the Division Bench of this Court has held the term ‘complete address’ as defined under Rule 10 of the 1977 Rules means the Postal Address or even the Postal Index Number. As per terms of Section 3 of the 1976 Act, the provisions of Rule 10 providing for printing of Postal Address or Postal Index Number shall be deemed to be complete address for the purpose of Act or the Rules framed thereunder as well from 13.1.2007. As in these petitions the samples were taken after the said date, the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court would be squarely covering the case of the petitioners, as the petitioners, although, have not mentioned the name of the State but have mentioned the Postal Index Number, which the Division Bench of this Court has found to be sufficient compliance of Rule 32(c)(1) of the the P.F.A. Rules, 1955. The only violation which was alleged to have been committed by the petitioners having failed the scrutiny of this Court as per the Division Bench order dated 18.07.2011, relevant of which stands reproduced above, the complaint itself cannot be sustained as the basis for proceeding against the petitioners did not exist. In view of the above, this petition and other petitions, mentioned above, are allowed. Complaints in all these cases along with consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. 29.09.2011 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) 'sp' JUDGE