CRM NO.M-7044 OF 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH *** CRM NO.M-7044 OF 2010 DATE OF DECISION 29.09.2011 Gopi Chand ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present: Mr. G.S.Sawhney, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. G.S.Brar, A.A.G, Punjab. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral) Challenge in this petition is to the complaint No.8/6.1.10 dated 06.01.2010 (Annexure P-3) vide which proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short 'the PFA Act') on the ground that the sample of Elpro Tomato Sauce was found to be misbranded as the product did not have the label in accordance with the provision of Rule 32 of the PFA Act and Rules 1955 as the year of manufacturing was not legible and also Batch No./Code No./ Lot No. was not given on the label. This complaint was initiated on the basis of the report submitted by the Public Analyst, Punjab, CRM NO.M-7044 OF 2010 -2- Chandigarh dated 30.09.2009 (Annexure P-2), where such misbranding was pointed out. Prayer has also been made for quashing of all resultant proceedings on the filing of the complaint. It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a manufacturer of Elpro Tomato Sauce and has obtained certificate/licence under the Fruit Products Order, 1955 (for short 'the FPO 1955'). The requirement as mandated under the FPO 1955, have been duly complied with by the petitioner and there being no violation of the conditions of licence/certificate, proceedings under the PFA Act, could have been initiated in the light of the Full Court judgment of this Court in the case of Chint Ram and another vs. State of Punjab 1971 Criminal Law Journal 971. His contention is that even going by the Form VI, which was handed over to the petitioner when the Government Food Inspector raided the shop of the vendor, it has been clearly mentioned that the year of manufacturing/packing is July, 2008. It is, therefore, apparent that the findings of the Public Analyst, Punjab, Chandigarh vide his report dated 30.09.2009 (Annexure P-2) is totally false and without any basis as it was apparent to the naked eyes that the date of manufacturing was July, 2008 as recorded by the Government Food Inspector while taking sample and issuing CRM NO.M-7044 OF 2010 -3- Form VI. As per the provisions of Clause 8 (d) of the FPO 1955, each container in which any food product is packed shall specify a code number indicating the lot or the date of manufacturing of such fruit product. It accordingly contains the date of manufacturing, which was clearly found to be available on the label. Therefore, the requirement of the FPO 1955, stood complied with. The contents of the container which are found to be as per specifications and there was no adulteration in the same and in the light of the fact that certificate/licence obtained under which he was required to fulfil the requirement of the FPO 1955 having been complied with, proceedings under the PFA Act cannot be initiated. Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the report of the Public Analyst clearly shows that the year of manufacturing was not legible and the Batch No./Lot No./Code No. was not given on the label, which violates the Rule 32 of the PFA Act. His further contention is that as per the packing, even if the date of manufacture was taken as July, 2008 its expiry date was 12 months as it was mentioned that it was 'best before 12 months' from the date of manufacturing i.e. upto July, 2009. The sample was taken on 31.08.2009. He accordingly prays for dismissal of the petition. However, the counsel does not have any reply to the contention of the CRM NO.M-7044 OF 2010 -4- counsel for the petitioner that in the light of the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Chint Ram's case (supra) no proceedings under the PFA Act could be initiated where a person is holding a certificate/licence under the FPO 1955. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case. Sample of Elpro Tomato Sauce was taken on 31.08.2009 by the Government Food Inspector, Amritsar. This is admittedly manufactured by the petitioner wherein the date of manufacture was shown in Form VI as July, 2008. It was further mentioned that the label indicated that it was best before the 12 months from the date of manufacturing/packing when kept in some cool, clean and dry condition. The report of the Public Analyst, Punjab, Chandigarh dated 30.09.2009 shows that it to be misbranded on the ground that the provisions of Rule 32 of the PFA Act and the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 have been violated as the year of manufacturing was not legible and the Batch No./Lot No./Code No. was not given on the label. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is the holder of licence/certificate under the FPO 1955. Clause 8 (1) of the FPO 1955 deals with the requirements which every manufacturer holding a licence/certificate with regard to the packing, marking and labeling of containers of fruit products is to comply with. As per sub-clause (d) thereof CRM NO.M-7044 OF 2010 -5- each container in which any fruit product is packed shall specify a code number indicating the lot or the date of manufacturer of such fruit product. As is apparent from the Form VI (Annexure P-1) the year of manufacture was very much there as July, 2008. The report of the Public Analyst with regard to it being not legible, cannot be accepted. As regards the Batch No./Lot No./Code No. not being on the label is concerned, the word 'or' has been used in sub- clause (d) of Clause 8 between the words 'code number indicating the lot' and 'the date of manufacture of such food product'. Meaning thereby if any one of them is mentioned, the condition of the clause stands fulfilled, as in this case. It is not in dispute that the contents of the container were not found to be, in any manner, contaminated or adulterated, the only violation was on the label, which was according to the FPO 1955 and thus there was no violation. That apart in the light of the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Chint Ram's case (supra), where it has been held that a product which has received certificate under the FPO 1955 and if there is no violation of the provision of that order he cannot be prosecuted in the PFA Act. The proceedings initiated against the petitioner cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The complaint No.8/6-1-10 dated 6.01.2010 (Annexure P-3) is CRM NO.M-7044 OF 2010 -6- hereby quashed as also all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom. 29.09.2011 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) adhikari JUDGE