CRM NO.M-10072 OF 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH *** CRM NO.M-10072 OF 2010 DATE OF DECISION 11.11.2011 Parle Agro Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present: Mr. Ashim Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Vishal Munjal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral) Reply on behalf of respondent filed in Court is taken on record. Copy given to the counsel opposite. On request made by the counsel for the parties, case is taken up for final disposal. In this petition, as per the petitioner sample of Mango Frooti Drink contained in six packets/tetra packs of 200 ml each were taken by the Government Food Inspector, Amritsar from the premises of Manjit Singh situated at Village Kukdanwala Ajnala Road, District Amritsar. The sample was sent to the Public Analyst, Punjab at Chandigarh, who after analysing the same, opined that the product has not been labelled in accordance with the provision of Rule 32 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules 1955') as complete address of its manufacturer has not been given. Hence the sample is misbranded. A perusal of the Analyst report would clearly indicate that the manufacturer of the product was M/s EPIC Food Products Pvt. Ltd. had given its address along with Pin code but had not mentioned the name of State in which it was situated. The requirement CRM NO.M-10072 OF 2010 -2- of Rule 32 of the Rules 1955 is that the manufacturer is to give complete address, which has been found to be the reason for declaring the said sample to be misbranded. He accordingly states that since the complete address has been given by the manufacturer in the light of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Hindustan Liver Limited Vs. Government Food Inspector, Hoshiarpur and another in Criminal Misc. No.M-40359 of 2007 decided on 18.07.2011, proceedings against the petitioner who is only the licensor could not have been initiated. He accordingly prays for quashing of the Complaint No.96/6.3.06 dated 6.3.2006 (Annexure P-4) along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the complete address of the licensor is not mentioned as the Pin code number has not been printed on the packet and therefore, the petitioner-Company had violated Rule 32 of the Rules 1955. Accordingly he prays for dismissal of the present petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case. Since Rule 32(c)(i) of the Rules 1955 requires the name and complete address of the manufacturer and the manufacturing unit, the same having been completely given by the manufacturer, the petitioner cannot be held liable, who is only the licensor and not involved in the manufacturing process. A similar question had arisen before the Division Bench judgment by this Court in the case of 'Hindustan Liver Limited Vs. Government Food Inspector, Hoshiarpur and another' in Criminal Misc. No.M-40359 of 2007 wherein it was held that the substance of the Rule is satisfied, when the name of the manufacturer and the address, which may be Pin code is given, can be termed as sufficient to identify and CRM NO.M-10072 OF 2010 -3- 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, 1955 does not necessarily include the name of the State as well. This decision was rendered by the Division Bench on 18.07.2011. 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 Standards of Weights and Measures Act (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 means the Postal Address or even the Postal Index Number. As per the terms of Section 3 of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976, 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 before 13.1.2007. As in this petition the sample was taken after the said date, the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court would be squarely covering the case of the petitioner, as the manufacturer i.e. M/s EPIC Food Products Pvt. Ltd. had, although, not mentioned the name of the State but had mentioned the Postal Index Number, which the Division Bench of this Court has found to be sufficient compliance of Rule 32(c)(i) of the Rules, 1955. In any case, petitioner is not the manufacturer but is only a licensor therefore, it cannot be held liable for violation of Rule 32 of the Rules 1955. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed. Complaint No.96/6.3.06 dated 06.03.2006 (Annexure P-4) stands quashed along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. 11.11.2011 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) adhikari JUDGE