Punjab-Haryana High Court
Tilak Raj vs State Of Punjab on 10 November, 2017
Author: Gurvinder Singh Gill
Bench: Gurvinder Singh Gill
(1) CRR No. 2466 of 2010
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
CRR No. 2466 of 2010
Date of Decision:-November 10, 2017
Tilak Raj .........Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ......Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill
Present : Mr. Vivek K.Thakur, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Ms. Ruchika Sabharwal, AAG, Punjab.
******
Gurvinder Singh Gill J.
1. The petitioner assails judgment dated 3.9.2010 pased by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, whereby his appeal against Trial Court's judgment dated 22.8.2006 challenging his conviction under Section 7(ii) punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954 (hereinafter referred to as PFA Act), has been dismissed.
2. The facts, necessary to notice for disposal to this revision petition, are that on 29.3.2001, the Government Food Inspector(hereinafter referred to as GFI) inspected premises of the petitioner who was found in possession of five packets of 'Dhara' double filtered mustard oil (each containing one litre). The Food Inspector, after issuing requisite notice in terms of Form-VI purchased three packets of mustard oil. One of the packets of the aforesaid mustard oil was sent to Public Analyst for its chemical examination and upon receipt of report Ex.PF, a complaint was filed against the accused in the Court of SDJM, 1 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 09-12-2017 04:59:18 ::: (2) CRR No. 2466 of 2010 Kapurthala on 21.8.2001 for having committed offence under Section 7(ii) of PFA Act.
3. The prosecution, in order to establish its case examined the complainant Paramjit Singh as PW-1 and also examined PW-2 Jaswant Singh and PW-3 Avtar Singh. The learned Trial Court upon appreciating the evidence held the accused guilty of having having committed offence under Section 7(ii) punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the PFA Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and also imposed a fine of ` 1,000/- vide judgment dated 22.8.2006. The appeal filed by the accused challenging aforesaid judgment was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala vide judgment dated 3.9.2010. Aggrieved with the same, the accused has filed the present revision petition.
4. The learned counsel for the accused while assailing the impugned judgment submitted that since the sample in question was found to be conforming to the prescribed standards, therefore, the sample of mustard oil cannot be said to be 'adulterated' so as to hold that the accused had committed any offence under PFA Act. The learned counsel has further submitted that in any case no offence under Section 7(ii) for selling 'misbranded' article of food can be said to have been committed as it is not the case of prosecution that any of the information printed on the packaging was found to be incorrect or any misrepresentation was made therein. The learned counsel further submitted that mustard oil is used for many other purposes other than for human consumption including lubrication purposes, burning purposes, massage etc. and that in the absence of any specific evidence to show that the mustard oil had been kept for sale for human consumption, no case under Prevention of 2 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 09-12-2017 04:59:19 ::: (3) CRR No. 2466 of 2010 Food Adulteration Act 1954 is made out. The learned counsel, thus, prayed for setting aside the impugned judgment and for acquittal of the accused.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that since the petitioner had kept the articles i.e. mustard oil beyond the shelf life of the food article, therefore, he hand rendered himself liable for selling an article unfit for human consumption. The learned counsel, thus, prayed for dismissal of the revision petition.
6. I have considered the rival submission addressed before this Court and have also perused record of the case. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to refer to the standards of mustard oil prescribed under Item A.17.06 of Appendix 'B' to Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 1956 and to compare the same with the report of the Public Analyst. The prescribed standards and the report of the Public Analyst are reproduced below in a tabulated form :-
Prescribed standards Public Analyst Report
(a) Butyro-refractometer 58.0 - 60.5 59.0 OR Refractive Index at 40°C 1.4646 - 1.4662
(b) Saponification value 168 - 177 174.45
(c) Iodine value 96 to 112 : Polybromide 106.47 test shall be negative.
(d) Unsaponifiable matter Not more than 1.2 per
cent by weight. - - -
(e) Acid value Not more than 6.0 0.63
(f) Bellier test (Turbidity 23.0°C to 27.5°C 25.0°C
temperature - Acetic acid
method)
(g) Test for argemone oil Negative Negative
(h) Test for Hydrocyanic acid Negative Negative
3 of 8
::: Downloaded on - 09-12-2017 04:59:19 :::
(4) CRR No. 2466 of 2010
7. A perusal of results of chemical analysis by the Public Analyst shows that the same conform to the prescribed standards. In fact, even the report of the Public Analyst, it has not been opined that there was any shortcoming in the constituents of the mustard oil. The opinion as mentioned in the report of the Public Analyst is reproduced below :-
"The sample was taken after the date of Best Before i.e. within eight months from the Date of Packing i.e. 12/99 as per declared on the label."
8. The petitioner, was however prosecuted for offence under Section 7(ii) for selling a 'misbranded' article of food.
9. Section 7(ii) of PFA Act 1954 reads as follows:
7. Prohibitions of manufacture, sale, etc., of certain articles of food .--No person shall himself or by any person on his behalf manufacture for sale or store, sell or distribute--
(i) any adulterated food;
(ii) any misbranded food ; (emphasis supplied)
(iii) any article of food for the sale of which a license is prescribed, except in accordance with the conditions of the license;
(iv) any article of food the sale of which is for the time being prohibited by the Food (Health) Authority [in the interest of public health;
(v) any article of food in contravention of any other provision of this Act or of any rule made thereunder;
or
(vi) any adulterant.
4 of 8
::: Downloaded on - 09-12-2017 04:59:19 :::
(5) CRR No. 2466 of 2010
10. The word misbranded has been defined is section 2 of PFA Act as follows:
2. Definitions .--In this Act unless the context otherwise requires,--
(ix) "misbranded"--an article of food shall be deemed to be misbranded--
(a) if it is an imitation of, or is a substitute for, or resembles in a manner likely to deceive, another article of food under the name of which it is sold, and is not plainly and conspicuously labelled so as to indicate its true character;
(b) if it is falsely stated to be the product of any place or country;
(c) if it is sold by a name which belongs to another article of food;
(d) if it is so coloured, flavoured or coated, powdered or polished that the fact that the article is damaged, is concealed or if the article is made to appear better or of greater value than it really is;
(e) if false claims are made for it upon the label or otherwise;
(f) if, when sold in packages which have been sealed or prepared by or at the instance of the manufacturer or producer and which bear his name and address, the contents of each package are not conspicuously and correctly stated on the outside thereof within the limits of variability prescribed under this Act;
(g) if the package containing it, or the label on the package bears any statement, design or device regarding the ingredients or the substances contained therein, which is false or misleading in any material particular; or if the package is otherwise deceptive with respect to its contents;
(h) if the package containing it or the label on the package bears the name of a fictitious individual or company as the manufacturer or producer of the article;
(i) if it purports to be, or is represented as being, for special dietary uses, unless its label bears such information as may be prescribed concerning its vitamin, mineral, or other dietary properties in order sufficiently to inform its purchaser as to its value for such uses;
(j) if it contains any artificial flavouring, artificial colouring or chemical preservative, without a declaratory label stating that fact, or in contravention of the requirements of this Act or rules made thereunder;
(k) if it is not labelled in accordance with the requirements of this Act or rules made thereunder;
5 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 09-12-2017 04:59:19 ::: (6) CRR No. 2466 of 2010
11. However, nothing has been shown to this Court as to which of the above requirements has been contravened in the present case so as to hold that the article in question was misbranded. It is not the case of prosecution that any of the declaration made on packaging was incorrect or any misrepresentation had been made.
12. It will also be beneficial to peruse Rule 32 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955(as it existed in 2001), which reads as follows :-
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..........
(c) The name and complete address of the manufacturer.......
(d) The net weight or number or measure of volume.....
(e) A distinctive batch number or lot number......
(g) the date of expiry in case of packages of aspertame which shall not be more than three years of date of packing
(h) the month and year in capital letters upto which the product is best for consumption in the following manner :
(emphasis supplied) " BEST FOR CONSUMPTION UP TO MONTH AND YEAR ..........."
OR " BEST FOR CONSUMPTION WITHIN ............ MONTHS FROM DATE OF PACKAGING / MANUFACTURE"
6 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 09-12-2017 04:59:19 ::: (7) CRR No. 2466 of 2010
13. Explanation VIII to aforesaid Rule 32 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 reads as follows:-
" Explanation VIII-
(i) "Best Before" means the date which signifies the end of the period under any stated storage conditions during which the product will remain fully marketable and shall retain any specific qualities for which tacit or express claims have been made and beyond that date the food may still be perfectly satisfactory."
14. In the present case, the requisite information mandated under Rule 32 as regards the declaration of the date before which the article was 'best' for consumption was duly printed. The accused has been prosecuted specifically for offence of 'misbranding' but it has not been shown as to which of the information furnished was incorrect or deceptive. It is not the case that the accused, while selling, had made any such representation which was incorrect. The only violation could be that the accused was found to be having articles in his premises, whose 'Best Before' date had expired. However the Explanation VIII to aforesaid Rule 32 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 would come to his rescue especially when, upon analysis, the ingredients of sample were found to be conforming to prescribed standards, which certainly does not advance the case of prosecution that accused was selling 'misbranded' article of food.
15. The sample having been found to be conforming to the prescribed standards and nothing having been shown to this Court as to how the sample of food was 'misbranded', the conviction of the petitioner for having committed offence under Section 7(ii) of PFA Act by keeping 'misbranded' article of food for 7 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 09-12-2017 04:59:19 ::: (8) CRR No. 2466 of 2010 sale cannot sustain.
16. In view of discussion made above, the conviction of the petitioner can not sustain. The revision petition accordingly merits acceptance and is accepted. The impugned judgment is hereby set aside and the petitioner is acquitted of the charges framed against him.
(Gurvinder Singh Gill)
Judge
November 10, 2017
kamal
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
8 of 8
::: Downloaded on - 09-12-2017 04:59:19 :::