Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S Aradhana Drinks & Beverages Pvt. ... vs Union Territory Of Chandigarh And ... on 18 October, 2011
Author: Augustine George Masih
Bench: Augustine George Masih
CRM No.M-9863 of 2010 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
***
CRM No.M-9863 of 2010
DATE OF DECISION 18.10.2011
M/s Aradhana Drinks & Beverages Pvt. Ltd. and another ...Petitioners
Versus
Union Territory of Chandigarh and another ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH.
Present: Mr. R.S.Cheema, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Rajesh Batra, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr. P.K.Kindra, Advocate
for U.T., Chandigarh.
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J (Oral)
Prayer in this petition is for setting aside the impugned order dated 25.09.2009 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh, issuing process to the petitioners by the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh and quashing of all consequential proceedings arising out of complaint No.202 dated 25.07.2005 titled "State (Chandigarh Administration, Chandigarh) Versus Bhushan Mittal and others" filed by the Food Inspector (Annexure P-2) against the petitioners as well as retailer under Section 7(i) & 2(ia)(j) and 16(1-A)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the PFA Act').
It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioners that the report given by the Public Analyst dated 27.05.2005 (Annexure P-3), which is the basis for initiating process against the petitioners declaring therein that unpermitted orange synthetic colour has been found, CRM No.M-9863 of 2010 -2- whereas the product should have been free from the same as laid down for "Carbonated Water" under Item A.01.01 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the PFA Rules') and thus, declaring the product to be an adulterated one is not correct. The opinion given by the Public Analyst is totally misplaced as Part VI of the PFA Rules under Item A.26, where food colours have been mentioned under Item A.26.02, Sunset Yellow is a synthetic colour, which is permissible and Orange has been termed as a synonym to the synthetic Sunset Yellow colour when mixed in a solution of distilled water of 0.1 percent (M/V). He further contends that in the light of the same the sample cannot be said to be adulterated as there is no violation of any of the provisions of the PFA Act or the PFA Rules framed thereunder. Accordingly, he prays for quashing of the complaint, as the basis for initiating prosecution against the petitioner and others cannot be sustained along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom including the order dated 25.09.2009 (Annexure P-1).
Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, contends that the Public Analyst in his report had referred to both the permitted colour, which is Sunset Yellow and Ponceau and also has mentioned Orange acid synthetic colour, which is unpermitted. He contends that the Public Analyst has already taken note of the permissible colour and has found that the orange synthetic colour is unpermitted and accordingly the sample is adulterated.
Counsel for the petitioners in response to this submits that the product is 'Miranda Orange Flavour Sweetened Carbonated Water' as the name suggest it is a sweetened carbonated water of Orange colour and when seen in the light of the provisions of Entry A.26.02, which deals with synthetic permissible colours, this colour 'Orange' is permissible. Thus, CRM No.M-9863 of 2010 -3- the findings and the observations along with opinion given by the Public Analyst in his report dated 26.05.2005 cannot be accepted.
I am inclined to accept the contention as raised by the counsel for the petitioners, firstly, because it is not in dispute that it was an Orange colour sweetened carbonated water and it was not a concentrated. Sunset Yellow when seen in the light of the Entry A.26.02 as provided in Appendix B of the PFA Rules, would show that if synthetic Sunset Yellow is used in a diluted form its colour is Orange. As the present product is a sweetened carbonated water therefore, it contains a diluted Sunset Yellow colour which would appear as Orange and would be a permissible colour as per the above entry. In the light of the specific provisions as provided under the PFA Rules, which has been referred to above, the opinion given by the Public Analyst in his report dated 27.05.2005 (Annexure P-3) cannot sustain. If that be so, the basis for initiating process against the petitioners and filing the complaint No.202 of 25.07.2005 titled "State (Chandigarh Administration, Chandigarh) Versus Bhushan Mittal and others" under Section 7(i) & 2(ia)(j) and 16(1- A)(i) of the PFA Act cannot be said to disclose any offence committed by the petitioners in violation of the provisions of the PFA Act and the PFA Rules.
Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and complaint No.202 of 25.07.2005 titled "State (Chandigarh Administration, Chandigarh) Versus Bhushan Mittal and others" under Section 7(i) & 2(ia)
(j) and 16(1-A)(i) of the PFA Act (Annexure P-2) is hereby quashed. It goes beyond without saying that all consequential proceedings arising therefrom shall also stand quashed.
18.10.2011 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) adhikari JUDGE