IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No.M-13035 of 2009 Date of Decision: 15.12.2009 Anil Kumar ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and anr. ...Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- Mr. G.S. Sawhney, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Anupinder Singh Grewal, Addl. A.G., Punjab. ***** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? ** NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the quashing of Complaint No.467 dated 15.10.2008, summoning order dated 15.10.2008 and resultant proceedings thereof, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. Brief facts of the case are that on 29.03.2007, the respondent No.2 inspected the premises of Anil Kumar, petitioner/accused No.1 in the complaint who was having the Bill dated 28.03.2007. The sample so purchased was divided in three equal parts and one of the part was sent to the Public Analyst, Punjab for analysis and after receiving the report of Public Analyst, the respondent No.2, being the complainant filed the complaint in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur. In the present case, as per the report of Public Analyst, the only violation that has been found is with regard to the misbranding as the product has not been labeled in accordance with the Rule 42(V) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 as the word Anti caking Agent is not written separately in surrounding line. Accordingly, the complaint was filed against the petitioner and on the basis of the complaint, summoning orders were issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur vide order dated 15.10.2008. The report of the Public Analyst Punjab, on the basis of which, the complaint was filed, reads as under :- “And am of the opinion that the product has not been labeled in accordance with the Rule 42(V) of P.F.A. Rule 1955, as the word Anti caking Agent is not written separately in surrounding lines. Hence the product is misbranded.” Learned counsel for the petitioner while praying for quashing of the complaint, submitted that from the perusal of the complaint and the Public Analyst report, the sealed packets of iodized salt was purchased which was manufactured by Western India Sea Pvt. Ltd., Brine Near Village Chapa Dava-Bhachau (Gujrat) and was marketed by respondent No.4 in the complaint. The label as indicated in the report by the Public Analyst also shows that sealed packets were received which had the ingredients like Anti caking agent mentioned in the packet of salt and thus, it can safely be concluded that there was no misbranding as the packet had complied with the provisions of Rule 42(V) of the PFA Rules. Secondly, the affixing of the label is the duty of the manufacturer and the petitioner cannot be prosecuted on account of not labeling the article of food in accordance with the provisions of Act or Rules. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard. A reply has been filed by the State. In para 6 of the reply, it is admitted that the petitioner is not a manufacturer of the food. It is also not denied that it is the duty of the manufacturer to print the label. However, it was argued that Section 7 of the Act prohibits the sale, store, distribution and manufacturing of any misbranded or adulterated food. Reliance has been placed by the petitioner on the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case titled as P. Unnikrishnan vs. Food Inspector, Palghat Municipality, Kerala State reported in 1996(2) Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 25 to state that if the article of Food is purchased from the manufacturer and was sold to the Food Inspector in the same form in the same condition, the petitioner cannot be held liable for the violation of any Act or Rules. In the judgment rendered by this Court in the case State of Punjab vs. Jagdish Chand and another 2004(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 478, it was held that since the sample was taken from a stitched bag, the accused who is a dealer cannot be held guilty, in case the sample is found to be sub-standard. In the case Arun Kumar and others vs. State of Punjab reported as 1995(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 231, this Court came to the conclusion that the samples of the fertilizer were taken from the machine stitched bags. Thus, in the absence of the allegation that the same was meddled or tampered, no offence can be made out against the dealer from whose custody the machine stitched bags were taken. Similar view was held by this Court in the case titled as Tarsem Singh vs. Union of India and others reported as 1996(2) Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 283. In the present case, it is not denied by the State that the petitioner is not the manufacturer of the food. It is also not denied that it is the duty of the manufacturer to affix label. There is nothing to suggest that the packets of salt were not sold in the same condition as manufactured by the manufacturer or were tampered with. Although, it was admitted that the sample was manufactured by Western India Sea Brines Pvt. Limited and was marketed by Allyroin Salt Company Gandhi-Dham, the petitioner was proceeded against as the word Anti caking Agent is not written separately in surrounding line. The only allegation in the present case is that the product is not labeled in accordance with Rule 42(V) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. This Court in the case of State of Punjab vs. Kewal Krishan 2008(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 63 accepted the judgment stating that the same was probable and justified. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur, who after going through the contents of the complaint, report of the public analyst held as under :- “ In the light of the above discussion, I am constrained to hold that the month and year of the manufacture having been displayed on the sample purchased by the Food Inspector from the accused, no violation of Rule 32(e) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act can be held to have been committed by the accused. Hence I find no prima facie case for service of notice upon the accused. The complaint is dismissed and the accused is discharged.” Thus taking into consideration that the petitioner is neither the manufacturer and to affix the label is the duty of the manufacturer and in the absence of allegation that the label was tampered with, no offence can be made out against the petitioner in view of the limited allegation in the complaint. There is no allegation that the said sample did not meet the specifications. In view of the above, Complaint No.467 dated 15.10.2008, summoning order dated 15.10.2008 and resultant proceedings thereof, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 is quashed qua petitioner only. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) 15.12.2009 JUDGE gurpreet