IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION No. 10238 of 2007 For Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI ========================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as 4 to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ?
5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
========================================= CADBURY INDIA LTD. & 1 - Applicant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s) ========================================= Appearance :
MR SV RAJU for Applicant(s) : 1 - 2.
MS KRINA CALLA, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent(s) : 1, RULE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 2, ========================================= CORAM: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI
Date : 21/03/2012 ORAL JUDGMENT
1. By this application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”), the applicants seek quashing of Criminal Case No.1221 of 2007 pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Kapadvanj alleging commission of the offence punishable under section 7(ii)(v) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).
2. The respondent No.2 – Food Inspector, Nadiad lodged a complaint in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Kapadvanj against the applicants herein and other co-accused, stating that he had, during the course of his duties, visited a shop doing business in the name and style of Hariom Agency, situated at Bhavsarwad, Kathlal, District Kheda and had purchased three wholesale packs of new Cadbury 5- Star Juniors Filled Chocolate for the purpose of getting them analyzed in the laboratory. It is alleged that on the package, it was mentioned amongst other things that it is manufactured by Dr. Writers Food Products Private Limited for and on behalf of Cadbury India Limited, that is, the accused No.4 and 2 respectively. It is further stated in the complaint that after following due procedure of law, the Food Inspector forwarded the sample to the Public Analyst for the purpose of analysis thereof. The Public Analyst forwarded his report dated 12.10.2006 to the complainant which revealed that the aforesaid new Cadbury 5-Star Juniors Filled Chocolate (wholesale company pack) did not show the list of ingredients on the wholesale pack or on the retail pack and therefore, there was a violation of rule 32(b) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”), amounting to `misbranding' as defined in section 2(ix) (k) of the Act, which is a breach of section 7(ii)(v) and is punishable under section 16 of the Act. It appears that thereafter, the respondent No.2 obtained the consent of the Local Health Authority on 15.7.2007 for filing the complaint against the applicants and other accused. Pursuant to the said complaint, the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Kapadvanj issued process against the applicants herein and other accused. Being aggrieved, the applicants have moved the present application seeking quashing of the said complaint under section 482 read with section 483 of the Code.
3. Mr. Bhadrish Raju, learned advocate for the applicants invited attention to the complaint lodged by the respondent No.2 – Food Inspector to submit that it was the case of the complainant that the package in question was a wholesale package consisting of 55 retail units of 7 grams each. The attention of the court was drawn to the provisions of rule 32 of the Rules and more particularly, to clause (b) thereof, which makes provision for the names of ingredients used in the product in descending order of their composition by weight or volume, as the case may be. It was pointed out that the proviso thereto provides that in case of a package weighing 20 grams or less, the particulars under clause (b) are not required to be satisfied. It was further pointed out that the subsequent proviso provides that in case of wholesale package, the particulars under clauses (b), (f), (g) and (h) need not be specified. It was submitted that in the facts of the present case, as is evident on a plain reading of the complaint, the package in question is a wholesale package comprised of retail units of less than 20 grams, under the circumstances, there was no requirement under the Rules for mentioning the ingredients of the article of food either on the retail unit or on the wholesale package. The entire complaint is, therefore, based on a misreading of the relevant rules inasmuch as, there being no requirement under the rules for mentioning the ingredients either on the wholesale package or the retail unit weighing less than 20 grams, there was no breach of provisions of section 32(b) of the Rules. It was, accordingly, submitted that the entire complaint being based upon misreading of the relevant rules, deserves to be quashed and set aside.
4. Opposing the application, Ms. Krina Calla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that though the package in question has been termed as a wholesale package, the same is in the nature of a multipiece package as defined under Explanation V to rule 32 of the Rules. Referring to the second proviso below clause (f) of the Rules, it was pointed out that in case of a multipiece package, declaration under clause (b) is required to be given either on the label of the multipiece package or on a separate slip inside the multipiece package. Referring to the facts of the present case, it was submitted there being no such declaration mentioning the ingredients on the package of the sample of food article, there is a clear breach of rule 32(b) of the Rules. Dealing with the contention that the complaint itself mentions that the package is a wholesale package, it was submitted that if such a contention is permitted to be taken, that would defeat the provisions of law inasmuch as, in such case, the manufacturer can get away from the requirement of mentioning the ingredients of the food article by not mentioning the same either on the retail item or on the package itself. Therefore, in case it is a wholesale package, the ingredients should be mentioned on the retail package or on the wholesale package. However, a manufacturer cannot get away without mentioning the ingredients of the food article either on the retail package or on the wholesale package. It was argued that in such a case, the consumers would not be in a position to know as to what are the ingredients of the product which he has purchased, defeating the very purpose of the legislation. It was, accordingly, submitted that the intention of the legislature should be construed to mean that the ingredients are either required to be mentioned on the wholesale package or on the retail package. Adverting to the facts of the present case, it was contended that since the retail packages weighed less than 20 grams, it was mandatory for the manufacturer to mention the ingredients on the package in question which would be a multipiece package and not a wholesale package. It was, accordingly, submitted that the complaint in question specifically makes out a case for breach of rule 32(b) of the Rules, which would amount to misbranding and that at this stage, when the complaint itself discloses commission of the offence as alleged; there is no warrant for interference in exercise of powers of section 482 of the Code.
5. In the backdrop of the facts and contentions noted hereinabove, it may be germane to note that the undisputed facts of the case are that the complainant in the complaint has mentioned that in the shop in question, 20 pieces of wholesale packages of Cadbury 5-Star Juniors Filled Chocolate had been kept and on each wholesale package, it was written in English, “Rs.2/- per unit, New Cadbury 5-Star Juniors Filled Chocolate – Veg. Logo etc., 400.026 net weight 55 unit x 7 grams wholesale package etc.”.
6. On a plain reading of the complaint, it is apparent that at every place therein, the package of the sample of food article has been referred to as a wholesale package by the complainant. A perusal of the report of Public Analyst shows that the same also refers to the package of the sample of food article as a wholesale package and states that the ingredients are not declared on wholesale pack or retail pack. The opinion of the Public Analyst is to the effect that the sample of Filled Chocolate (5-Star Junior) wholesale package is misbranded as it contravenes the provisions of rule 32(b) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. Thus, even according to the Public Analyst, the package of the sample of food article is a wholesale package.
7. At this juncture, it may be germane to refer to the relevant statutory provisions in this regard. Rule 32 of the Rules insofar as the same is relevant for the present purpose, reads thus:
“32. Package of food 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:-
(a) the name, trade name or description of food contained in the package;
(b) the names of ingredients used in the product in descending order of their composition by weight or volume as the case may be;
xxxx xxxx xxxx Provided that in case of package weighing 20g or less and liquid products marketed in bottles which are recycled for refilling particulars under clause (b) need not be specified.
Provided also that such declarations shall be given on the label of multipiece package either on the label of multipiece package or in separate slip inside the multipiece package in such a manner that the same is readable even without opening the package.
xxxx xxxx Provided that in case of wholesale packages, the particulars under clauses (b), (f), (g), (h) and this clause need not be specified.”
xxxx xxxx Explanation-V: `Multipiece package' means a package containing two or more individually packaged or labelled pieces of the same commodity of identical quality, intended for retail either in individual pieces or package as a whole.
Explanation-VI.-‘Wholesale package’ means a package containing -
(a) a number of retail packages, where such first mentioned package is intended for sale, distribution or delivery to an intermediary and is not intended for sale direct to a single consumer; or
(b) a commodity of food sold to an intermediary in bulk to enable such intermediary to sell, distribute or deliver such commodity of food to the consumer in smaller quantities.”
8. Thus, rule 32(b) of the Rules inter alia provides that every package of food shall carry a label and unless otherwise provided in the rules, there shall be specified on every label,
(a) the name, trade name or description of food contained in the package; (b) the names of ingredients used in the product in descending order of their composition by weight or volume as the case may be, etc. Thus, the said rule mandates that every package of food shall carry a label and unless otherwise provided in the rules. The first proviso mentioned below clause (f) of rule 32 of the Rules provides that in case of a package weighing 20 grams or less, there is no requirement of specifying the particulars under clause (b). Thus, the rule itself carves out the exception whereby the ingredients used in the product are not required to be mentioned in case the package weighs less than 20 grams. The second proviso below clause (f) provides for making such a declaration on the label of multipiece package either on the label of the multipiece package or in a separate slip inside the multipiece package. The proviso below clause (i) of rule 32 provides that in case of wholesale packages, the particulars under clauses (b), (f), (g), (h) and clause (i) need not be specified. Thus, another exception is carved out under this proviso whereby in case of wholesale packages, the requirements of clause (b), viz. mentioning the names of ingredients used in the product on the label, are not required to be satisfied.
9. Thus, examining the facts of the present case in the light of the aforesaid statutory provisions, it is apparent that the complaint itself mentions that the package in question is a wholesale package comprising of retail units of less than 20 gram each. Under the circumstances, in the light of the first proviso to clause (i) of rule 32 of the Rules, it is apparent that the requirements of clause (b) are not required to be satisfied in case of retail units weighing less than 20 grams as well as wholesale packages. Thus, in the instant case, there being no requirement of mentioning the ingredients either on the wholesale package or on the retail package, it is apparent that there is no breach of rule 32(b) of the Rules as alleged in the complaint.
10. However, as noticed earlier, on behalf of the respondents, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has contended that the package in question is a retail package and that it was, therefore, necessary for the applicants to mention the ingredients of the food item either on the label or by a separate slip inside the multipiece package. The reason for so contending is that in the absence of the ingredients being mentioned either on the retail unit or on the wholesale package, the consumers would not be in a position to know the ingredients of the food item which he has purchased. The contention is that it could never be the intention of the legislature to permit the manufacturer to give a go-bye to the provisions of clause (b) of rule 32 of the Rules by resorting to packaging of retail units weighing less than 20 grams in wholesale packages, which would frustrate the entire intention of the legislature. In this regard, it may be necessary to refer to the definition of “multipiece package” and “wholesale package” as defined under the Rules. “Multipiece package” has been defined in Explanation-V to mean a package containing two or more individually packed or labelled pieces of the same commodity of identical quality, intended for retail either in individual pieces or as a whole. Thus, for the purpose of falling within the ambit of the expression “multipiece package” two requirements should be satisfied. Firstly that the package should contain two or more individually packed or labeled pieces of the same commodity of identical quality, which requirement appears to be satisfied in the present case as the package of the sample of food article is a package containing 55 retail units of Cadbury 5-Star Juniors Filled Chocolate. The second requirement is again in two parts, namely that the package should be intended for retail either (i) in individual pieces, or (ii) as a whole. Insofar as the second requirement is concerned, the first part thereof, namely that the package should be intended for retail in individual pieces is clearly satisfied, however, the second part thereof, viz. it should be intended for retail as a whole is clearly not satisfied, inasmuch as the package of the sample of food article is not such as is sold in retail as a whole. In fact it is not even the case of the respondents that the entire package would in the ordinary course be sold as a whole. Thus, the package of the sample of food article clearly does not fall within the ambit of the expression “multipiece package” as defined under Explanation-
V to rule 32(b) of the Rules. “Wholesale package” has been defined under Explanation-VI, to mean a package containing a number of retail packages, where such first mentioned package is intended for sale, distribution or delivery to an intermediary and is not intended for sale direct to a single consumer. In the facts of the present case, the package of the sample of food article is meant for sale to an intermediary and is not intended for sale to a single consumer. Under the circumstances, it is apparent that the package of the sample of food article is a wholesale package within the meaning of the said expression as defined under Explanation-VI to rule 32(b) of the Rules.
11. Thus, the package of the sample of food article in question being a wholesale package and the retail units contained therein being less than 20 grams each, there was no requirement of mentioning the ingredients on the label of either the retail units or the wholesale package. Under the circumstances, there is no breach of rule 32(b) of the Rules as alleged in the complaint. Consequently, it cannot be said that there is any misbranding as contemplated under section 2(ix) (k) of the Act, so as to be violative of section 7(ii)(v) of the Act. Under the circumstances, in absence of violation of any of the provisions of the Act, no offence under section 16 of the Act can be stated to have been committed. In the aforesaid premises, when no offence as alleged can be stated to have been made out, this is a fit case for exercise of powers under section 482 of the Code for quashing the complaint as no useful purpose would be served if the trial is permitted to go on against the applicants.
12. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the application succeeds and is, accordingly, allowed. Criminal Case No.1221 of 2007 pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Kapadvanj is hereby quashed. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
[HARSHA DEVANI, J.] parmar*