- (1.) BY the Court. -Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State.
(2.) ON 14.7.2011, the Food Inspector, Ranchi collected the sample of daliya from the outlet of Reliance Fresh, Hinoo, Ranchi. The sample collected was sent to the Public Analyst. Upon analysis, the Public Analyst submitted its report to the effect that the samples collected are not labelled in accordance with Rule 32(i) of the Prevention of the Food Adulteration Rule, 1955 and hence, the same is mis -branded in terms of Section 2(ix)(k) of the Prevention of the Food Adulteration Act. On submission of the report, a complaint was lodged which was registered as Complaint case being Case No.C -IV -24 of 2011, upon which cognizance of the offence vide order dated 8.8.2011 punishable under Section 16 (i)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, was taken against the petitioner, the Manager of the Reliance Fresh, which order is under challenge. 2010 (3) PLJR 31 and also in a case of Oscar Josheph and Anr. v. The State of Jharkhand and Anr., in Cr. M.P. No. 663 of 2009. 4. Further submission is that the Food Inspector who is said to have collected the sample was not competent to make search as he had never been notified in the Official Gazette to be the Food Inspector for the area and as such, any prosecution based upon such illegal search and seizure would be bad. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the office has reported that counter -affidavit has not been filed, wherein it has been stated that four persons had been notified in the Official Gazette to be the Food Inspector for whole of the State and in course of time, if some of the persons get transferred only an office order is issued notifying the name of the Food Inspector posted at the particular place. In such event Memo dated 31.12.2010 has been issued. 6. In the context of the submission notice of the provision as contained in Section 2(ix) of the Act which speaks about misbranded needs to be taken notice of which reads as follows : - (ix) "misbranded" -an article of food shall be deemed to be misbranded - (k) if it is not labelled in accordance with the requirements of this Act or rules made thereunder. 7. Therefore, the case of the prosecution also falls within sub -section (k) of Section 2(ix) of the Act. 8. Rule 32 of the Act envisages that month and year in capital letters upto which the product is best for consumption should be provided in the following manner. The manner indicates "BEST BEFORE..... MONTH AND YEAR". 9. Since the aforesaid clause was not written in capital letters over the packets of the daliya, seized from the outlet of the Reliance Fresh, the prosecution case has been lodged. It is never the case that clause which was required to be there under Rule 32 was never there over the packets rather it was there but in small letters and, therefore, there was a sufficient compliance of Rule 32. The same view was taken by the Patna High Court and also by this Court, in the cases, referred to above. 10. Under such situation, prosecution of the petitioners seems to be unwarranted. 11. Accordingly, the entire criminal prosecution of Complaint Case being C -IV -24 of 2011 including the order taking cognizance dated 8.8.2011 is hereby, quashed, so far the above -named petitioner is concerned. 12. In the result, this application stands allowed. Application allowed.;