- (1.) Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State and learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2. This application is directed against the order dated 22.9.2009 passed in a Complaint bearing case no. C-IV-19 of 2009 whereby and whereunder cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i)(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, has been taken against the petitioner.
(2.) Mr. Dwivedi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that a sample of Rishabh's Badi (Masoor Badi), was taken from One of the outlets of the Reliance Fresh. That was sent to the Public Analyst, Jharkhand, Ranchi for its analysis. On being analyzed, the product was found to be 'misbranded' as complete address of the manufacturer was not there over the label of the packet and on such accusation, the prosecution was initiated against the petitioner who happened to be one of the employees of the Reliance Fresh, but if one would look to the Analyst's report, it would appear that address is there but that does not seem to be complete address. However, that can be taken to be sufficient compliance and, therefore, any prosecution on that ground of the petitioner would be abuse of the process of the Court.
(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that almost in similar situation, when in some of the cases of misbranding, when it was found that 'Best Before Use' which should have been printed over the packets in capital letters had not been printed in the capital letters, but in small letters, the Court has taken it as sufficient compliance and, therefore, on the same analogy, this would also be taken to be case of sufficient compliance under Rule 32 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955.;