IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Misc. No.30784-M of 2009 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION : AUGUST 29, 2011 M/S PURAB TRADING COMPANY ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. Deepak Suri, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Ms. Rajni Gupta, Addl.AG, Punjab. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) 1 This order shall dispose of two petitions, viz. Criminal Miscellaneous No.30784-M of 2009 (M/s Purab Trading Company v. State of Punjab) and Criminal Miscellaneous No.1809-M of 2010 (Chetan Kochhar v. State of Punjab), as common questions of law and facts are involved. 2 For reference to facts, Criminal Miscellaneous No.30784-M of 2009 (M/s Purab Trading Company v. State of Punjab) is being taken up. 3 The petitioner, who is a retail vendor of M/s Britannia Industries Limited, has approached this Court through the present petition filed under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, for quashing of complaint (Annexure P-2) entitled 'State v. Arjun Dass and another), under Section 16 of the Criminal Misc. No.30784-M of 2009 (O&M) 2 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Dera Bassi, and summoning order dated 5.5.2009 (Annexure P-3). 4 The complaint (Annexure P-2) has been lodged for violation of Rule 32 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. The relevant allegations are contained in para-11 of the complaint (Annexure P-2) and read as under:- “11. That the report of the public analyst Punjab Chandigarh received by the Petitioner through the local health authority Patiala which is submitted along with this complaint shows that the product has not been labeled in accordance with the provisions of Rule 32 of PFA Rules 1955 as the complete address of the manufacturer (i.e. name of the state) has not been given. Hence is sample is misbranded.” 5 Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that no offence has been committed insomuch as the Pin/Postal Code has been given on the wrapper, which would make address of the manufacturer amply clear. In such circumstances, it cannot be held that the food product is misbranded. The continuance of proceedings is an abuse of process of court and the process of law, as there has been no misbranding, postal code having been given on the wrapper of the food product. 6 Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on a Division Bench decision of this Court rendered in Criminal Miscellaneous No.40359-M of 2007 (Hindustan Lever Limited v. Government Food Inspector, Hoshiarpur and another), decided on 18.7.2011. 7 Learned counsel for the respondent-State has not been able to dispute the fact that mis-branding has been Criminal Misc. No.30784-M of 2009 (O&M) 3 alleged only on account of non mentioning of place of manufacture of the food product. 8 I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 9 In the case of Hindustan Lever Limited (supra), it has been held as under:- “...... 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. ....” 10 In view of the fact that Pin Code has been given on the wrapper of the food product, which is sufficient to identify the place and State of Manufacture, the article recovered cannot be termed as mis-branded. 11 The petition is, accordingly, allowed. 12 Complaint (Annexure P-2) entitled 'State v. Arjun Dass and another), under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Dera Bassi, and summoning order dated 5.5.2009 (Annexure P-3), are hereby quashed. August 29, 2011 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Criminal Misc. No.30784-M of 2009 (O&M) 4 For orders, see order of even date passed in