IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.43890 of 2007 MD.IZHAR Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Satish Chandra Mishra Md. Nurul Hoda. For the State : Mr. Parmeshwar Mehta. ------------ 3/ 15.01.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner, who is stated to be a retail seller, is aggrieved by his prosecution under Section 16(1) (a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1955 in Bhagalpur P.S. Case No. 37/2007 corresponding to T.R. no. 2076/2007. The order of cognizance is dated 22.01.2007. The Food Inspector visited the shop of the petitioner and purchased Nirma Salt 500 x 3 grams on the payment of Rs. 12/- which was sent to the public analyst. The report was that the product did not comply with the labeling provisions regarding fixation of the logo that it was a vegetable product and, therefore, it was misbranded. The defence of the petitioner is that he is a simple shopkeeper and not the manufacturer of the salt, who was required to affix the appropriate labels. If the appropriate labels were missing on the product, the manufacturer was liable for the same. Learned counsel submits that no offence can be said to have been committed by the petitioner under the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and that his prosecution alone in absence of the manufacturer is not sustainable. He relies upon two Bench decisions of this Court reported in 2007 Suppl. P.L.J.R. 678 2 (Abhishek Abhiranjan @ Babu Vrs. State of Bihar) and 2008(4) P.L.J.R. 135 (Vinita Bali Vrs. The State of Bihar). The allegations are of misbranding. The product did not display whether it was a vegetarian product or non-vegetarian product. That the product met the requirements of salt and that it was not adulterated by any materials harmful for human consumption, is not alleged in the report of the public analyst. Salt is manufactured by only one process. Unlike fat, which can be either vegetable fat or animal fat making necessary to qualify the nature of the origin, cannot be applicable in the case of common salt. Common salt is not manufactured by any process to render it a non-vegetarian product. The failure of the manufacturer to label vegetarian product, is hardly of significance and in any event cannot fasten liability upon the petitioner in absence of the manufacturer. Section 2(ix) of the Food Adulteration Act, which describes misbranding, could be applicable only if the complaint does make out any allegations to bring the absence of the logo within any of the clause of Section 2(ix) (a) to (j). Insofar as Clause (k) is concerned, it relates to the manufacturer of his statutory duties to affix the label and not on the petitioner. This Court on that discussion finds no reason to arrive at any conclusion different from that already arrived at in the aforesaid Judgments both, on the issue of misbranding as also the issue of prosecution without impleading the manufacturer, when the petitioner is stated to be only a retail seller and not the manufacturer of the product. The order of cognizance and the entire prosecution of 3 the petitioner under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act are, accordingly, quashed. The application stands allowed. S.B.P. (Navin Sinha, J.)