VINOD K.SHARMA, J. - (1.) THIS petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash complaint (Annexure P-1) filed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as ('the Act') pending in the Court of Mr. Harjinder Pal Singh, Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Garhshanker as well as the summoning order and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
(2.) THE petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act and is in business of manufacturing bakery products. The registered office of the company is situated at 5/1A, Hungerford Street, Kolkata. The PIN Code is 700 017.The company has branches at different places where the manufacturing and packing of the products is carried out. In exercise of powers conferred under the Act the statutory rules have been framed by the Government to carry out the objects of the Act. Rule 32(c)(i) and (ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 deals with packing and labeling of Foods. The relevant part of the said rule is reproduced for ready reference : "32. Package of good to carry a label. - Every package of food shall carry a label and unless otherwise provided in these rules, there shall be specified on every label - (c)(i) the name and complete address of the manufacturer and the manufacturing unit, if these are located at different places and in case the manufacturer is not the packer or bottler, the name and complete address of the packing or bottling unit as the case may be; (ii) where an article of food is manufactured or packed or bottled by a person or a company under the written authority of some other manufacturer or company, under his or its brand name, the label shall carry the name and complete address of the manufacturing or packing or bottling unit as the case may be, and also the name and complete address of the manufacturer or the company, for and on whose behalf it is manufactured or packed or bottled;...." 3. Though the Rule provides that the name and complete address of the manufacturer and manufacturing unit, if these are located at different places as well as the packer or bottler's name is required to be given but the word "Complete address" has not been defined under the rule framed under the Act. 4. The complaint filed on against the petitioners is that they have failed to comply with the Rule 32(c)(i) of the Rules, referred to above, as the address given by the petitioners on their product is as under : "Manufacturer : "Britannia Industries Limited 5/1A Hungerford Street Kolkata - 700 017" Packer "PKM Foods Village Ranipur Defence Road Pathankot - 201001 5. Complaint has been filed on the allegation that as the State where the registered office of the Company or where the packing is being a done, has not been mentioned. 6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the reading of the complaint does not disclose any offence against the petitioners and continuation of the proceedings would be nothing but misuse of process of Court. 7. In support of this contention the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that once under the Rules the word "complete Address" has not been defined. It has to be given an ordinary meaning i.e. to say that address should be sufficient to reach the person. In addition thereto the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on SWM-Standard Weighment and Measurements Package Commodities Rules, 1977 as Rule 10 of the said Rules also deals with declaration of name and address of the manufacturer. The Rule 10 reads asunder : "10. Declaration of Name and Address of the Manufacturer, etc. - (a) Subject to the provisions of rule 7, every package kept, offered or exposed for sale or sold shall bear conspicuously on the package, the name and complete address of the manufacturer, or where the manufacturer, is not the packer, the name and address of the manufacturer and the packer. Explanation. - "Complete Address" means, in the case of a company, the address at which its registered office is situated, and, in any other case, the name of the street, number (if any) assigned to the premises of the manufacturer or packer, and either the name of the city and State where the business is carried out by the manufacturer or packer or the PIN Code......" 8. The reading of Rule 10 would show that the intention of the rule making authority was that the complete address should be given so that the manufacturer and the packer can be identified and located. The rules framed under the Standard Weighment and Measurements Package Commodities Rules give an option to the manufacturer to either mention the name of the State or the PIN Code. The address given by the petitioner, includes the PIN Code and, therefore, the Food Inspector or person authorised under the Rules have no difficulty in locating the address. 9. Thus, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that in view of what has been stated above, the complaint and the summoning order as well as the subsequent proceedings are liable to be quashed. 10. The learned counsel for the State states that as the name of the State is not mentioned, therefore, there is violation of Rule regarding giving of complete address, the product was thus misbranded. 11. The learned counsel for the State has not been able to point out that under Rule 32(c)(i) of the Act as to how the requirement of mentioning State was mandatory. The learned counsel for the State also relied on the definition of the rules under the Standard Weighment and Measurements Package Commodities Rules to contend that complete address should include State. 12. However, the reading of the rule would clearly show that the word used is "or" not "and". Once the PIN Code is given the requirement of Standard Weighment and Measurements Package Commodities Rules stands satisfied. 13. The reading of the complaint thus shows that no offence, whatsoever, against the petitioners. Even if the allegations are taken on their face value that the said product can not said to be misbranded, as is sought to be contended by the learned counsel for the State. 14. Consequently, this petition is allowed and the complaint (Annexure P-1) filed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 pending in the Court of Mr. Harjinder Pal Singh, Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Garhshanker as well as the summoning order and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are ordered to be quashed. Petition allowed.;