CRM No. M-15114 of 2011 02.11.2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CRM No. M-15114 of 2011 Date of Decision : November 02, 2011 Britannia Industries Limited .... PETITIONER Vs. State of Punjab through Government Food Inspector, Tehsil Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur ..... RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH * * * Present : Mr. Deepak Suri, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Vishal Munjal, Addl. A.G., Punjab. * * * AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) Complaint under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1954') and Rules 32 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules, 1955') was initiated against the petitioner on the ground that the product was mis-branded as the packing of the biscuits manufactured by the petitioner-Company did not disclose the complete address. What was missing in the said address, was the name CRM No. M-15114 of 2011 02.11.2011 2 of the State and on that basis, it was alleged that the provisions, as contained under Rule 32 of the Rules, 1955, have not been complied with as the complete address of the manufacturer i.e. the name of the State has not been given, hence sample was mis-branded. Counsel for the petitioner contends that this issue stands resolved by a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Crl. Misc. No. M- 40359 of 2007 titled as Hindustan Lever Limited vs. Govt. Food Inspector, Hoshiarpur and another, wherein it has been held that in case the Postal Index Number has been mentioned, the name of the State, if not mentioned, would not amount to violation of Rule 32 of the Rules, 1955. Reliance has also been placed on the decision of this Court dated 29.09.2011 in Crl. Misc. No. M-16487 of 2007 titled as M/s Aradhna Soft Drinks Company and another vs. The Union Territory of Chandigarh and another, which was decided along with other similarly placed cases by following the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Hindustan Lever Limited's case (supra). Accordingly, prayer has been made for allowing the present petition by quashing complaint No. 5 dated 13.06.2006 (Annexure P-4) and summoning order dated 13.06.2006 (Annexure P-5) and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. Counsel for the State could not dispute the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner with regard to the decision of this Court in M/s Aradhna Soft Drinks Company and another (supra). In view of the above, the present petition is allowed qua the petitioner only in same terms as in Crl. Misc. No. M-16487 of 2007 titled as M/s Aradhna Soft Drinks Company and another vs. The Union Territory of Chandigarh and another, decided on 29.09.2011. Complaint CRM No. M-15114 of 2011 02.11.2011 3 No. 5 dated 13.06.2006 (Annexure P-4) and summoning order dated 13.06.2006 (Annexure P-5) along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) November 02, 2011 JUDGE pj