IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.57249 of 2007 VINITA BALI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- For petitioner:- Mr. Anand Kr. Ojha, Mr. Ashok Kr. Karna For State:- Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, A.P.P. 3 11 .8.2008 The petitioner has been prosecuted under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adultration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the „Act‟ for the sake of brevity). The said prosecution is based on the allegation that there is violation of Rule 32 under Chapter VII of the Prevention of Food and Adultration Rule, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the „Rules‟). The petitioner is the Managing Director of Britania Industries Ltd. having its head office at Kolkata. The Milk Bikis Biscuits were seized from M/S Rashmi Enterprises who is authorized whole sale dealer and the sample of the Biscuits was sent to the Public Analyst, Patna. The allegation as per the prosecution report is as follows:- “Milk Bikis Biscuits does not confirm to the rule of labeling provision so it is misbranded as per report No. 3496 dated 20.10.2006 of the Public Analyst, Bihar, Patna.” The report of the Public Analyst, is at Page 41 of the brief which simply states that “LOGO is not fixed on the proper site of the label”. On plain reading of the report of the Analyst and prosecution report it appears that the case is one of “Misbranding” Section 16 is penal section clause which enumerates the offences under which any person can be punished for violation of the 2 „Act‟. Section 16(1)(a)(i) is relevant for the purpose of the deciding the issue at hand, which reads as follows:- “1 (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (1A) if any person- (a) Whether by himself or by any other person on his behalf, imports into India or manufactures for sales or stores, sells or distributes any article of food- (i) Which is adulterated within the meaning of sub-clause (m) of Clause (ia) of Section 2 or misbranded within the meaning of clause (ix) of that Section or the sale of which is prohibited under any provision of this Act or any rule made thereunder or by an order of the food (Health) Authority;” This Court is not concerned with the provision covering the allegations of adulteration defined in Sub Clause 1(m) of Section 2 as there is no allegation of adulteration of the food items in this case. The Court has to examine the provisions of Clause (ix) of Section 2 which deals with misbranding. Clause (ix) of Section 2 envisages several conditions before a food article shall be deemed to be misbranded. The allegations in the present case to say the least are vague. Merely stating that the LOGO is not fixed at the proper place on the wrapper of a biscuit packet does not by itself come within the mischief the Sub Clauses of Clause (ix) of Section 2 (a). Sub Clause (a) to (d) and (h) to (k) of section 2(ix) are completely excluded as no offence is made out under the provisions of those clauses. As far as sub Clause (f) and (g) of Section 2(ix) is concerned, this Court finds it very 3 difficult to hold that any offence is made out under Sub-Clause (f) and (g) of Section 2 (x). Sub Clause (f) of Section 2(ix) define misbranding by saying that a articles of food would be mis branded if it is sold/prepared by a manufacturer or producer and which bear his name and address, the contents of each package are not conspicuously and correctly stated on out side there within the limits of variability under this Act, and sub section (g) of section 2(ix) envisages that if the package containing the food article, bears any statement, design or device regarding the ingredients or the substances contained therein, which is false or misleading in any material particular or if the package is otherwise deceptive with respect to its contents it would be treated as misbranded. According to the F.I.R. it is alleged that Milk Biscuits which were sold did not conform to the rule of labeling and were therefore mis branded. The Rules regarding labeling are provided in part II of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the rules). The rules envisage that the trade name, description of the food ingredients, the LOGO with respect to the article being vegetarian or non vegetarian should be clearly stated. In essence the rules require that the manufacturer describes the food item so that the purchaser is aware of the contents etc. of the food article. It has been contended by the opposite party that the LOGO declaring the food article to be vegetarian was not placed at the proper place. This objection is not tenable as the violation or the so called “site” where the LOGO was placed has not been described by the report of the Analysist. 4 Even otherwise I find it a hyper technical objection which is not justified in view of the fact that there is no violation of other provisions of Act & Rules since it is not the prosecution case that the LOGO placed showed the food article to the vegetarian and it turned out on examination to contain articles which were non-vegetarian. The allegation only vaguely states that the LOGO was not properly placed. In the result I find that the ingredients of the offence under Section 16(a)(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 are not made out against the petitioner and as such I quash the order dated 22.1.2007 cognizance passed in P.S. Case No. 32/2007/T.R 2087/2007. This application is accordingly allowed. Sanjay/A.F.R. (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)