CHANDRA BALI SHARMA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND
LAWS(JHAR)-2013-1-112
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Decided on January 23,2013

Chandra Bali Sharma Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF JHARKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State.
(2.) ON 07/06/2011, the Food Inspector, collected the samples of Mustard Oil (Elephant Brand) having batch no. NR/3/M/A, 2011 C, packed on 20/05/2011 from M/S SAIL Employees Consumer Co operative Society and sent it for its chemical analysis before the Mineral Area Development Authority (MADA). The Public Analyst vide his report no. 391/2011, reported that the sample of the Elephant Brand Mustard Oil is not labelled in accordance with requirement of Rule 32 (cf) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules and, hence, the same is misbranded in terms of Section 2(ix) (k) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. On submission of report, a complaint was lodged, which was registered as Complaint Case No. C IV 22/11. Upon which, cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 16 (1) (a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, was taken against the petitioner vide order dated 08/08/2011, which is under challenge. Mr. Nilesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that according to the Analyst's report, the words written over the packets as the words like 114 /20th May 2011, mentioned on the upper side of package unconclusive and, hence it was taken to be misbranded. But, from the seizure list as has been annexed as Annexure 1 A, it would appear that the packet was having batch number, which was found by the Food Inspector as NR/3/M/A/2011 C. Similarly, date of the packing has been mentioned as 20th May 2011 and, thereby, it can be said that there is sufficient compliance of the aforesaid Provisions and, therefore, the prosecution against the petitioner, who happens to be one of the representatives of manufacturing company, is unwarranted.
(3.) IN the context of submission one may take notice of the provision as contained in Rule 32 (1) (e) & (f), which reads as follows: "32. Every prepackaged food to carry a label (a) General (1) Prepackaged food shall not be described or presented on any label or in any labelling manner that is false, misleading or deceptive or is likely to create an erroneous impression regarding its character in any respect. (2) to (4).... (b) to (d)......... (e) Lot/Code/Batch identification A batch number or code number or lot number which is a mark of identification by which the food can be traced in the manufacture and identified in the distribution, shall be given on the label. [Provided that in case of packages containing bread and milk including sterilized milk, particulars under this clause shall not be required to be given on the label.] (f) Date of Manufacture or packing The date, month and year in which the commodity is manufactured, packed or pre -packed, shall be given on the label: Provided that the month and the year of manufacture, packing or pre -packing shall be given if the "best Before Date" of the products is more than three months: Provided further that in case any package contains commodity which has a short shelf life of less than three months, the date, month and year in which the commodity is manufactured or prepared or prepacked shall be mentioned on the label." ;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.