In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure --------------- CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.29879 OF 2001 CHAIRMAN, M/S HINDUSTAN LEVER Ltd., 165-166, Backbay Reclamation, Mumbai through M.S. Bonga ----------Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. S.Kumar, Food Inspector, Civil Surgeon Office,Patna ---Opp.Parties. WITH Cr.Misc. No.7269 OF 2002 C.M.JOSHI, Quality Assurance Manager, M/S International Best Food Ltd., 26 H Somani marg, Mumbai-400001 ----------- Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Shri A.K.Singh, The Food Inspector, Civil Surgeon Office,Patna -----------------------------Opp.Parties. WITH Cr.Misc. No.7304 oF 2002 M/S INDEXPORT LTD., a Company duly registered under the provisions of Indian Companies Act and having its registered office at 165/166, Backbay Reclamation, Mumbai 400 020, through its Legal Manager Saswata Dhar C/o Brooke House,9, Shakeshpeare Sarani, Kolkatta ------------------- Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Shri A.K.Singh, The Food Inspector, Civil Surgeon Office,Patna --------------------- Opp.Parties. ------------------ For the petitioners: S/Sri N.K.Agrawal, Sr. Advocate Jayanta Roy Choudhary, Advocate For the State: (i) Sri Mukeshwar Dayal, A.P.P. (ii) Sri Parmeshwar Mahto, A.P.P. (iii) Sri Dilip Kumar Sinha, A.P.P. ------------------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR Rakesh Kumar, J. All the three cases were heard together and are being disposed of by this common Judgment. 2 2. In all the three cases the petitioners are being prosecuted for violating provision contained in Rule 32 (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 1955 ( herein after referred to as “ the Rules” . It was alleged in all the three cases that the petitioners have committed violation of the Rules by not mentioning on the label of the product in “Capital Letter” regarding the fact that the product was best for consumption up to certain period. It was noticed that on the label instead of mentioning those facts in “Capital Letter”, they had mentioned in small letters. This fact has not been disputed by Sri Dilip Kumar Sinha, learned Addl.Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State. On the same question, the matter was heard earlier by a Bench of this Court and it was held that mentioning of such fact even in small letter amounts to substantial compliance of the provisions and, accordingly, on such allegation one cannot be prosecuted. Sri N.K. Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has referred to a Judgment of Single Bench of this Court, reported in 2005 (1) PLJR 188 (Jadish Prasad Didwania & Anr Vrs. State of Bihar & Anr.,) and another case, which was allowed following the Judgment of Jagdish Prasad Didwania’s case (supra), which has been reported in 2010 (3) PLJR 31(M.D., Anand Aqua, M/S S.B. Industries Vrs. The State of Bihar & Anr). In view of the fact that in the similar circumstances, this Court has set aside the order of cognizance, it would not be appropriate to deny the same relief to the petitioners. 3. Accordingly, order of cognizance dated 6.2.2001 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna City in CB Case No.3 of 2001, Tr.No.1177 of 2001 in Cr.Misc.No.29879 of 2001 , order of cognizance dated 3.7.2001 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial 3 Magistrate, Patna City in Complaint Case No. CB 20 of 2001 in Cr.Misc.No.7304 of 2002 and order of cognizance dated 16.2.2001 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna City in Complaint Case No.11(M) of 2001 in Cr.Misc.No.7269 of 2002, so far petitioners are concerned, are hereby set aside and all the three petitions are allowed. Patna High Court, Patna Dated : the 15th November,2010 Nawal Kishore Singh/ N.A.F.R. ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)