Delhi District Court
Fi vs . Rattan Lal Etc. Page 1 Of 14 on 6 January, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SHRI BALWANT RAI BANSAL
ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATEII,
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
C.C. No. 157/04
Food Inspector
Department of PFA
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
A20, Lawrence Road
Indl. Area, Delhi - 35
................. Complainant
Versus
1. Sh. Rattan Lal S/o Sh. Tikam Chand
M/s N.K. Traders,
12/19, Moti Nagar, New Delhi - 15
R/o 13/7, Moti Nagar, New Delhi 15
.......... VendorcumProprietor
2. Sh. Harjeet Singh S/o Sh. Pritam Singh
M/s Jagdamba Agency,
H3/173, Vikas Puri, New Delhi 15
.......... Proprietor of Distributor
Firm
3. Sh. Lal Babu S/o late Sh. Madan Lal
M/s G.D. Foods Mfg. (I) Pvt. Ltd.,
Plot No. 61, Matiala Indl. Complex, New Delhi59
.......... Nominee of Mfg. Co.
CC No. 157/04
FI Vs. Rattan Lal Etc. Page 1 of 14
4. M/s G.D. Foods Mfg. (I) Pvt. Ltd.,
Plot No. 61, Matiala Indl. Complex, New Delhi59
.......... Manufacturing Co.
COMPLAINT U/S 16 OF THE PREVENTION OF FOOD
ADULTERATION ACT, 1954
Serial number of the case : 157/04
Date of the commission of the offence : 11.02.2004
Date of filing of the complaint : 19.08.2004
Name of the Complainant, if any : Shri V.P.S. Chaudhary, Food
Inspector
Offence complained of or proved : For violation of Section 2 (ix) (k)
of PFA Act and for violation of
provisions of appendix B of
(A20.01) of PFA Rules;
punishable U/s 16(1) (a) r/w S. 7
of the PFA Act 1954.
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final order : Acquitted
Arguments heard on : 21.11.2013
Judgment announced on : 06.01.2014
J U D G M E N T
1. The present complaint has been filed on 19.08.2004 by the Delhi Administration through Food Inspector Sh. V.P.S. Chaudhary against the aforesaid accused persons. It is stated in the complaint that on 11.02.2004 at about 16.00 hours, FI Sh. V.P.S. Chaudhary purchased a sample of 'Vinegar', a food article for analysis from Rattan Lal S/o CC No. 157/04 FI Vs. Rattan Lal Etc. Page 2 of 14 Sh. Tikam Chand from the premises of M/s N.K. Traders, 12/19, Moti Nagar, New Delhi - 15, where the said food article was found stored for sale and where accused Rattan Lal was found conducting the business of the said food article at the time of sampling. The sample consisted of 3 x 650 ml. of "Vinegar" taken as such original sealed bottles, bearing identical label declaration. The sample was taken under the supervision and direction of Shri M.A. Ashraf, LHA. The Food Inspector divided the sample into three equal parts then and there and each sample container was separately packed, fastened and sealed according to the PFA Act and Rules. The signatures of vendor were obtained on the LHA slip and the wrapper of the containers containing the sample. Notice was given to accused Rattan Lal (vendor) and price of sample was also paid to him vide vendor's receipt dated 11.02.2004. Panchnama was also prepared at the spot. All these documents prepared at the spot were signed by accused/vendor Rattan Lal Arya and other witness namely Sh. Balwant Shah, FA. It is stated that before taking the sample, efforts were made to get the public witnesses to join the proceedings, but none came forward, as such Sh. Balwant shah, FA was joined as witness.
2. It is further stated that one counterpart of the sample bearing LHA Code No. 91/LHA/7458 in intact condition was sent to the Public Analyst, Delhi and two counterparts of the sample in intact conditions were deposited with LHA. The Public Analyst analyzed the sample and opined that, "The sample is misbranded because label does not mention word CC No. 157/04 FI Vs. Rattan Lal Etc. Page 3 of 14 synthetic. The contents conforms to the standard of synthetic vinegar."
3. It is further stated that during investigations, it was found that Rattan Lal S/o Sh. Tikam Chand was the vendorcumProprietor of M/s N.K. Traders, 12/19, Moti Nagar, New Delhi15 at the time of sampling and as such he is incharge of and responsible for day to day conduct of the business of the said shop. The vendor had purchased the sampled food article from distributor M/s Jagdamba Agency, H3/173, Vikas Puri, New Delhi15, which is a proprietorship concern in the name of Harjeet Singh, who is incharge of and responsible for day to day conduct of the business of the said distributor firm. The distributor firm M/s Jagdamba Agency purchased the sampled food article from manufacturing firm M/s G.D. Foods Mfg. (I) Pvt Ltd., whose nominee was Lal Babu at the time of manufacturing of the sampled food article and as such he is incharge of and responsible for day to day conduct of the business of the said company along with the manufacturing company i.e. M/s G.D. Foods Mfg. (I) Pvt. Ltd. It is stated that after the conclusion of investigation, the entire case file was sent to the Director, PFA who accorded the requisite consent U/s 20 of the Act and consequent thereto the present complaint was filed against the aforesaid accused persons for violation of provisions of Section 2 (ix) (k) of the PFA Act, 1954 and for violation of Appended B of (A20.01) of PFA Rules 1955, which is punishable U/s 16 (1) (a) r/w Section 7 of the PFA Act 1954.
CC No. 157/04 FI Vs. Rattan Lal Etc. Page 4 of 144. Accused were summoned vide order dated 19.08.2004. All the accused persons appeared and were admitted to bail.
5. It is pertinent here to mention that on an application moved by the accused no. 1 & 2 U/s 294 Cr.P.C. r/w Section 19 (2) of PFA Act separately, they were granted benefit U/s 19 (2) of PFA Act and accordingly they were discharged vide order dated 16.05.2006.
6. The prosecution examined FI V.P.S. Chaudhary who conducted the sample proceedings as PW1 towards precharge evidence and vide order dated 18.05.2009, precharge evidence was closed.
7. Charge for the violation of provisions of Section 2 (ix) (k )and for violation of provision of Appendix B of (A.20.21) of PFA Rules 1955, punishable U/s 16 (1( (a) r/w section 7 of the Act was framed against no. 3 and 4 separately vide order dated 07.09.2009 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
8. Thereafter, in order to prove its case, the prosecution examined three witnesses including FI V.P.S. Chaudhary as PW1, FA Balwant Shah, who was made a witness in the sample proceedings as PW2 and Shri M.A. Ashraf, the then SDM/LHA under whose supervision the sample proceedings were conducted as PW3 and PE was closed vide order dated 09.12.2011.
9. Statement of accused no. 3 and of accused 4 through its AR U/s 313 r/w Section 281 Cr.P.C. were recorded separately on 24.05.2012 wherein they claimed themselves to be innocent and opted to lead evidence CC No. 157/04 FI Vs. Rattan Lal Etc. Page 5 of 14 in their defence. However, no evidence was led by accused no. 3 & 4 and DE was closed vide order dated 13.09.2012.
10. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.
11. Ld. Counsel for accused no. 3 & 4 argued that it is not the case of adulteration and accused have been prosecuted only for allegation of misbranding because as per report of Public Analyst word 'synthetic' was not mentioned in the label declaration of sample commodity, which is in violation of PFA Rules, otherwise the sample was found conforming to the standard of synthetic vinegar. He further argued that all the ingredient of the sample commodity were mentioned on the label of the sample bottles which is also apparent from Notice in Form VI Ex. PW1/B prepared at the spot. He further argued that on the label, it has been categorically mentioned that 'Prepared from Acetic Acid', which implies that it is a synthetic vinegar and only on the ground of omission of word 'synthetic' in the label, the sample cannot be said to be misbranded and the accused cannot be said to have violated the provisions of PFA Act and Rules. To fortify this argument he has relied upon the judgments reported in Home Made Baker's (India Ltd.) Vs. Food Inspector (State of Punjab) & Ors. 213 (1) FAC 108, K. Ranganatha Reddiar Vs. The State of Kerala, Criminal Appeal No. 141 of 1967 and Ram Babu Rastogi & Ors. Vs. State through Food Inspector (PFA) 2012 (1) FAC 56".
CC No. 157/04 FI Vs. Rattan Lal Etc. Page 6 of 1412. On the other hand, Ld. SPP for complainant argued that Appendix B of (A.20.01) of PFA Rules, 1955 of PFA Rules 1955 provides that synthetic vinegar shall be distinctly labeled as 'SyntheticPrepared from Acetic Acid'. and since the word 'synthetic' has not been mentioned on the label of the sample commodity, it has caused prejudice to the intended customers, which is in violation of PFA Rules. Ld. Prosecutor has further vehemently argued that since there is violation of PFA Act and Rules, the accused persons are liable to be convicted.
13. All the witnesses examined by the prosecution have deposed more or less as per the averments made in the complaint.
14. PW1 FI. V.P.S. Chaudhary, who is the complainant and conducted the sample proceedings in the present case deposed in his examinationinchief that on 11.02.2004, he along with FA Balwant Shah under the supervision and direction of SDM/LHA Sh. M.A. Ashraf went to M/s N.K. Traders, 12/19, Moti Nagar, New Delhi, where accused Rattan Lal was found conducting the business of 'Vinegar', a food article. He further deposed that he disclosed his identity and intention for purchasing the sample of Vinegar to which accused agreed and thereafter at about 4.00 PM, he purchased 3 x 650 ml of original sealed bottles of Vinegar bearing identical label declaration on payment of Rs. 31.50/ vide vendor's receipt Ex. PW1/A and then Notice in Form VI Ex. PW1/B was prepared and the copy of same was given to the accused. He further deposed that thereafter he divided the sample into three equal parts by taking one such sealed CC No. 157/04 FI Vs. Rattan Lal Etc. Page 7 of 14 originally bottle in one counterpart and each counterpart was separately packed, fastened and sealed according to PFA Act and Rules. He further deposed that Panchnama Ex. PW1/C was also prepared at the spot and the vendor at the time of sampling disclosed that he purchased the sample bottles from M/s Jagdamba Agencies and accordingly a notice U/s 14A Ex. PW1/D was prepared and sent to the addressee through registered post.
15. It is further deposed by PW1 that one counterpart of the sample was deposed with PA on 12.02.2004 vide receipt Ex. PW1/E and remaining two counterparts of the sample along with two copies of Memo in Form VII in a sealed packet were deposited with LHA on the same day vide receipt Ex. PW1/F. He further deposed that after receipt of PA report, according to which sample was misbranded, he further investigated the matter and after conclusion of investigation, the entire case file was sent to Director, PFA who granted his consent for prosecution against the accused persons. He further deposed that thereafter he filed the complaint and intimation letter along with copy of PA report were sent to the accused persons through registered post which were not received back undelivered.
16. During his deposition, PW1 also placed on record letter sent by him during investigation to STO, Ward No. 55 as Ex. PW1/H, letter sent by him to supplier M/s Jagdamba Agencies as Ex. PW1/I, its reply as Ex. PW1/I1, letter sent to manufacturing company M/s G.D. Foods Mfg. (I) Pvt. Ltd. as Ex. PW1/J, its reply a Ex. PW1/J1, copy of nomination form and resolution of Board of Directors as Mark A2 & A3, consent given by CC No. 157/04 FI Vs. Rattan Lal Etc. Page 8 of 14 the Director, PFA for initiating the prosecution against the accused persons as Ex. PW1/K, complaint filed against the accused persons as Ex. PW1/L, copy of intimation letter sent to the accused through registered post along with PA report as Ex. PW1/M and photocopy of postal registration receipt as Ex. PW1/N.
17. PW2 FA Balwant Shah, who was made a witness in the sample proceedings has deposed more or less on the similar lines in his examinationinchief as deposed by PW1 regarding sample proceedings.
18. PW3 Sh. M.A. Ashraf, the then SDM/LHA under whose supervision and direction sample proceedings were conducted also corroborated the testimony of PW1 in his evidence and deposed more or less on the similar lines as deposed by PW1 in his examinationinchief.
19. Accused no. 3 in his statement recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C. r/w Section 281 Cr.P.C. as well as in the statement of accused no. 4 recorded through him being AR of accused no. 4 stated that he was the Nominee of M/s G.D. Foods Mfg. (I) Pvt. Ltd. on the date of lifting the sample and the company M/s G.D. Foods Mfg. (I) Pvt. Ltd. had supplied the sample commodity to M/s Jagdamba Agency, its distributor. It was further stated that sample commodity was sealed bottles of Vinegar and all the ingredients of the sample commodity including Acetic Acid were mentioned on the label of the sample bottles.
20. In the present case, it is not in dispute that sample of Vinegar, lifted from accused no. 1 was manufactured by accused no. 4, of which CC No. 157/04 FI Vs. Rattan Lal Etc. Page 9 of 14 accused no. 3 is the Nominee. The sample manufactured by the accused no. 4 was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis. The Public Analyst after analyzing the sample of Vinegar vide its report dated 05.03.2004 found the same misbranded. The report of Public Analyst has been proved on record as Ex. PW1/G, on the basis of which present complaint has been launched against the accused persons. From the report of Public Analyst Ex. PW/1G, it is apparent that there is no allegations of adulteration in the sample commodity of 'Vinegar' and the sample failed only on account of mis branding. As per report of Public Analyst, the sample was misbranded because the label does not mention word "synthetic".
21. Before proceeding further, let us discuss the relevant provision of law. Appendix B of A.20.01 of PFA Rules 1955 reads as under:
"1. Synthetic Vinegar means the product prepared from acetic acid with or without caramel & spices and shall conform to the following requirements:
(i) Acidity of the product shall not be less than 3.75 per cent m/v.
(ii) It shall not contain sulphuric acid or any other mineral acid. It shall be free from any foreign substance or colouring matter except caramel.
2. Synthetic vinegar shall be distinctly labeled as SYNTHETIC - PREPARED FROM ACETIC ACID.
3. The container shall be well filled with the produce and shall occupy not less than 90.0 per cent of the net weight of the container, when packed in the rigid containers. The net weight of the container is the volume of distilled water at 20 deg C which the sealed container capable of holding then completely filled."
22. It is not in dispute that at the time of sample proceedings various documents including Notice in Form VI Ex. PW1/B was prepared at the spot, wherein label declaration of the sample commodity were CC No. 157/04 FI Vs. Rattan Lal Etc. Page 10 of 14 reproduced by the Food Inspector. As per label declaration reproduced in notice Ex. PW1/B, it is mentioned on the label of the sample bottles of Vinegar that 'Prepared from Acetic Acid'. As per case of prosecution, label declaration made on the sample commodity is not as per the provisions of Appendix B of A.20.01 as the word 'Synthetic' has not been mentioned on the label.
23. However, it is evident from the notice in Form VI Ex. PW1/B that except the omission of word 'synthetic', all the other ingredients of sample commodity were mentioned on the label as per Appendix B of A.20.01 and it is also mentioned that it is prepared from Acetic Acid. In this regard, PW1 FI V.P. S. Chaudhary, who conducted the sample proceedings, admitted in his crossexamination that synthetic vinegar is prepared from acetic acid. He stated that word 'Brewed' was not mentioned on the label of the bottle, but nonfruit tops vinegar and ingredients were mentioned as reproduced by him on the notice in Form VI. PW2 also admitted in his crossexamination that the ingredients of the sample commodity were mentioned on the label.
24. In Home Made Baker's (India Ltd.) Vs. Food Inspector (State of Punjab) & Ors. (cited supra), six packets of milk Glucose biscuits were taken from the petitioner's premises for the purpose of analysis. The Public Analyst opined that the sample was misbranded as the word "permitted colour" had been written instead of "permitted synthetic food colour" as required under Rule 24 of the Rules, 1955. In those CC No. 157/04 FI Vs. Rattan Lal Etc. Page 11 of 14 circumstances, the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court held that since no synthetic colour was detected in the sample, the fact that it was not written on the sample that permitted synthetic food colour has been used loses its significance, and thus the sample cannot be said to be misbranded.
25. In case of Ram Babu Rastogi Vs. State (Cited supra), the allegation of misbranding against the petitioners were that the sample product of 'Flavoured Chewing Tobacco' declared the label as "Best before within 6 months from date of packaging". The only grievance of the Department was that the word "within" which stood omitted after 01.09.2001 was added by the petitioners in the label and that made the same as misbranded because of clear violation of Rule 32 (i). The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi after referring the other judgments of Hon'ble Madras High Court titled as Nehrudasan Vs. Food Inspector, Mdurai Corporation, Madurain, 2010 (1) FAC 49, T. Prabhu & Anr. Vs. The State, 2007 (1) FAC 314 and Hindustan Lever ltd & Ors. Vs. Food Inspector, 2007 (1) FAC 299 held that, "Mere use of word "within" as a surplusage would not bring the petitioners under the penal provisions of the Act. By any means, the purchasers could not be said to have been deceived or misled as regard the character, quantity, quality or date of manufacture and the limit of use of the product."
26. In K. Ranganatha Raddiar Vs. State of Kerala (cited above), the Hon'ble Apex Court defined the meaning of word 'quality' and held that the words 'quality is upto the mark" mean that the quality of the article is CC No. 157/04 FI Vs. Rattan Lal Etc. Page 12 of 14 upto the standard required by the Act. Quality in this context would include nature and substance because the name of the article is given in the cash memo. It must be remembered that it is not a document drafted by a solicitor, it is document using the language of a tradesman. Any tradesman, when he is assured that the quality of the article is upto the mark will readily conclude that he is being assured that the article is not adulterated.
27. From the ratio of the aforesaid judgments, it is apparent that if sufficient details of ingredients of a food article have been disclosed on the label of the food article and nothing has been concealed from the intended purchasers, the omission of a specific word on the label would not bring the manufacturers under the penal provisions of the Act.
28. In the present case also, only the word 'synthetic' has been omitted to be written on the label, otherwise all the ingredients of the sample commodity were categorically mentioned on the label, which fact has also been admitted by PWs in their crossexamination. It was also mentioned on the label that sample of Vinegar is prepared from Acetic Acid, which means that it is a synthetic vinegar. Therefore, in view of law laid down in the aforesaid authorities, only on the ground of omission of word 'synthetic' on the label, the sample commodity cannot be said to be misbranded as reported by Public Analyst.
29. In view of aforesaid discussions, in my considered opinion, no case is made out against the accused no. 3 & 4. The prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused No. 3 & 4. Hence, they are acquitted of CC No. 157/04 FI Vs. Rattan Lal Etc. Page 13 of 14 the charges leveled against them.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open Court (Balwant Rai Bansal)
on 6th January, 2014 ACMMII/ PHC/ New Delhi
CC No. 157/04
FI Vs. Rattan Lal Etc. Page 14 of 14
CC No. 157/04
DA Vs. Rattan Lal Etc.
06.01.2014
Present: None for complainant.
Accused no. 1 & 2 have already been discharged.
Accused no. 3, who is representing accused no. 4 as well, with counsel Sh. M.L. Narang.
Vide my separate Judgment of even date dictated and announced in the open court, accused no. 3 & 4 stand acquitted of the charges leveled against them. Previous Bail Bond / Surety Bond stands cancelled. Surety stands discharged. Endorsement on the documents of the previous surety, if any, be cancelled.
Accused no. 3 is directed to furnish fresh bail bonds in compliance of Section 437A Cr.P.C. He has furnished the B/B & S/B in the sum of Rs. 20,000/ each. Same is accepted.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(Balwant Rai Bansal) ACMMII/PHC/ND/06.01.2014 CC No. 157/04 FI Vs. Rattan Lal Etc. Page 15 of 14