IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.50389 of 2007 CHARAN KHELANI, MANAGING DIRECTOR, LUMBINI BEVERAGE PVT. LTD., H-2, EPIP, INDUSTRIAL AREA, HAJIPUR, DISTRICT VAISHALI- 844 101. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. CIVIL SURGEON-CUM-CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER, SASARAM (ROHTAS). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OPPOSITE PARTIES For the petitioner :- Mr. Umesh Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Singh, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, A.P.P. ********* 5 11.2.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing on behalf of the State. The Managing Director of Lumbini Beverage Private Limited., H-2, EPIP, Industrial Area, Hajipur has been made accused in this case. The prosecution report indicates that the Civil Surgeon-cum- Chief Medical Officer, Sasaram (Rohtas) purchased certain bottles of cold drinks (PEPSI). The report discloses that Batch Number of the bottles seized was ‘F’ and packaging date was 31.5.2006. The bottle was sent to analyst for a report regarding the contents of the PEPSI in the bottle. The report contained in Annexure-2 indicates that the sample of PEPSI does not perform to the prescribed labeling provisions, so it 2 was misbranded. It is said that it does not contain the Batch Number and date of manufacturing. The analyst report differs with the prosecution report which indicates both the Batch Number and date of packaging. Drawing this Court’s attention to Rule 32(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the date of packing/manufacturing has to be filled in with respect to carbonated water items which are to be sold in the market. Meaning thereby that the date of manufacturing or the date of packaging has to be mentioned on the items that are to be sold. Thus to say that the date of manufacturing has not been mentioned on the bottle, whereas the date of packaging has been clearly indicated, is a misnomer and misinterpretation of the law and the rules. Therefore, it cannot be said that the seized bottles of PEPSI were misbranded/ mislabeled. In the circumstances, I find that no offence is made out against the petitioner. The order dated 28.2.2007, passed in 3 Official Case No. 30 of 2007/Trial No. 2745 of 2007, pending in the Court of the Sub- divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sasaram (Rohtas) is quashed. This application is allowed. Sanjay ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)