G.R.MOOLCHANDANI,J. - (1.) This petition is directed against the criminal proceedings sub-judice before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deeg, Bharatpur, in Criminal Case No.543/2011 State v. Bunty and Others , for the offence/s punishable under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and the petitioner has made a prayer to quash the criminal proceedings.
(2.) In nutshell, a complaint was filed before the court below by Food Inspector, pleading that during inspection on 18.4.2010, three packets of Brooke Bond Taj Mahal Brand tea, each weighing 245 gram, were bought for examination and sampling, which were later found by the laboratory to be 'misbranded' because of non conforming to Rule 42(ZZZ)(17) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Rules of 1955').
(3.) Heard submissions of both the sides. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that Taj Mahal Brand tea, a renowned tea leaf, has got no relevance being Non-Veg and nothing of alleged misbranding has been detected nor established, sheer displaying of symbol denoting product being 'Veg' or 'Non Veg' has alleged to have not been placed at given spot, which is not tenable since commodity of tea leaf is always 'Veg' and prescribed symbol indicating inherent quality of the product was printed on the package of the product at a conspicuous spot, worthy to be spotted easily by the buyer, as such compliance of Rule 42(ZZZ)(17) has also been adhered to and there was no transgression to any provision of law. Petitioner company is a consumer product manufacturing entity of repute and has wrongly been implicated. Learned court below has erred in passing impugned order of cognizance, which deserves to be quashed and has further submitted to allow the petition and to quash criminal proceedings ; in support of his contentions, reliance has been placed on the following authorities:- 1. Omparkash Shivprakash v. K.I. Kuriakose and Ors. (1999) 8 SCC 633 2. A.K. Roy and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors. (1986) 4 SCC 326 3. Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander and Anr. (2012) 9 SCC 460 4. Rupak Kumar v. State of Bihar and Anr. (2014) 4 SCC 277 5. Kunti Lal v. State of Rajasthan 1988 WLN (UC) 331 6. Glaxo India Ltd. v. State of Assam and Ors. (2003) 1 GLR 407 7. Prem Kumar Agrawal and Anr. v. The State of Bihar (Cr. Misc. No.7197/2008 decided on 24.07.2008) 8. Vinita Bali v. The State of Bihar (Cr. Misc. No.57249/2007 decided on 28.07.2008) 9. Jay Prakash Tekriwal @ Jay Prakash v. The State of Bihar and Anr (Cr. Misc. No.37361/2007 decided on 05.02.2010) 10. M.N. Katharmytheen and Anr. v. The State (Cr. Original Petition (MD) No.6891/2010 decided on 11.08.2010) 11. M/s Rungta Tea Company v. The State of Bihar (Cr. Misc. No.9932/2009 decided on 06.01.2011) 12. Gopaldas Keshwani v. State of M.P. and Anr. (M. Cr. C. No.10291/2013 decided on 16.12.2013) 13. Hindustan Unilever Limited v. The State of Bihar (Criminal Misc. No.45209/2012 decided on 24th July, 2014) 14. Swapnil S. Kumar v. State of Rajasthan 2017(1) WLC (Raj.) UC 697 Learned State counsel has contended that petition deserves to be dismissed, since petitioner has violated Rule 42(ZZZ)(17).;