Delhi District Court
Pankaj Goel vs Food Safety Officer Through Fso on 18 October, 2023
IN THE COURT OF MR. SANJAY GARG-I
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE :
NEW DELHI DISTRICT
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS : NEW DELHI
FSAT No.12/2023
CNR No. DLND10048222023
1. Pankaj Goel S/o Sh. Ved Prakash Goel
M/s Pawan Store, 1/159, Sadar Bazar, Delhi-110010
R/o 1/232, Goel Niwas, Sadar Bazar, Delhi-110010.
2. Vikas Goel S/o Sh. Ved Prakash Goel
M/s Pawan Store, 1/159, Sadar Bazar, Delhi-110010
R/o 1/232, Goel Niwas, Sadar Bazar, Delhi-110010.
3. M/s Pawan Store
1/159, Sadar Bazar, Delhi-110010.
Through Sh. Vikash Goel, AR .... (FBO Firm)
4. Harish Kumar S/o Niyamat Ram,
M/s Swastik Traders, WZ-717, Gopal Nagar,
Tihar Village, New Delhi-110018
R/o 42/18, Ashok Nagar, Delhi-11018
(Supplier to appellant no. 3)
5. Raj Kumar Aggarwal
M/s Dharamsons Marketing Pvt. Ltd.
603, Vikram Tower, 16, Rajinder Place,
New Delhi-110008,
6. M/s. Dharamsons Marketing Pvt. Ltd.
603, Vikram Tower, 16, Rajinder Place,
New Delhi-110008,
Through Sh. Raj Kumar Aggarwal, Authorized
Representative (Supplier to appellant no. 4)
7. Dinesh Kumar
Tata Chemicals Ltd. C/o GPA Foods Pvt. Ltd.
2262-2265, Foods Park, Phase-II,
HSIIDC, Rai, Haryana-131029
(Nominee of appellant no. 8)
8. Tata Chemicals Ltd. C/o GPA Foods Pvt. Ltd.
2262-2265, Foods Park, Phase II,
HSIIDC, Rai, Haryana-131029
(Nominee of appellant no. 6)
9. Animesh Chatterjee
Bombay House, 24, Homi Mody Street,
FSAT No.12/2023 Pankaj Goel & Ors. v. FSO Page 1 of 16
Fort Mumbai, Maharashtra-400001
(Nominee of appellant no. 10 &11)
10. Tata Chemicals Limited C/o GVR Nutries Pvt. Ltd.
Survey No. 1/1, Plot No. 2, At Chichghat (Rathi),
Post-Shegaon (Kund), Tah, Hinganghat, Distt. Wardha,
Maharashtra-442301. Through Sh. Animesh
Chatterjee, AR (Supplier Co. to Appellant no. 8)
11. Tata Chemicals Limited
Regd office at: Bombay House, 24 Homi Mody Street,
Fort Mumbai, Maharashtra-400001
Through Ms. Sheetal Tawar, Authorized Representative
(Marketing company)
12. Varun Rathi M/s. GVR Nutries Pvt. Ltd.
Survey No. 1/1, Plot No. 2, At Chichghat (Rathi),
Post-Shegaon (Kund), Tah Hinganghat, Distt. Wardha,
Maharashtra-442301 (Nominee of appellant no. 13)
13. M/s. GVR Nutries Pvt. Ltd.
Survey no. 1/1, Plot no. 2, At chichghat (Rathi),
Post-Shegaon (Kund), Tah. Hinganghat, Distt. Wardha
Maharashtra-442301,
Through Sh. Varun Rathi, Authorized Representative
(Mfg. & Re-packer & Supplier to appellant no. 10)
...... Appellants
Versus
State through Sh. Pankaj Kumar Meena
Food Safety Officer
Department of Food Safety
Govt. of NCT of Delhi, 8th Floor,
Mayur Bhawan, Connaught Palace
New Delhi110001. .......Respondent
Date of Institution : 23.05.2023
Date of hearing arguments : 12.10.2023
Date of Judgment : 18.10.2023
Appearances:
Sh. Saurabh Awasthi and Sh. Satish Solanki, Ld. Counsel for the
appellants.
Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Ld. Chief PP for the State/Respondent
FSAT No.12/2023 Pankaj Goel & Ors. v. FSO Page 2 of 16
JUDGMENT:
1. This judgment shall decide the present appeal preferred by the appellants under Section 70 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred as 'FSS Act') assailing order dated 18.04.2023 passed by Adjudicating Officer/Addl. District Magistrate (New Delhi), Jam Nagar House, New Delhi, imposing consolidated penalty of Rs.10,000/ each upon the appellant nos.1,2&3, Rs. 5,000/ upon appellant no.4, Rs. 10,000/ each upon appellant nos.5&6, Rs. 20,000/ each upon appellant nos. 7 to 11 and Rs.20,000/ each upon appellant nos. 12 & 13, for violation of Sections 26(1), 26(2)(ii), 23(1), 27(1), 27(2)(c) & 28(3)(c) of the FSS Act read with Section 3(1)(zf) of FSS Act in contravention of Regulation no. 2.2.1.3 read with 2.3.1.5 of the Food Safety and Standards (Packaging & Labeling) Regulations, 2011 (hereinafter referred as FSS (P&L) Regulation, punishable under Section 52 of the FSS Act.
BRIEF FACTS:
2. It is stated that on 21.01.2020, Sh. Pankaj Kumar Meena, Food Safety Officer took sample of "Dal Urad Kali (Tata Sampann)" from Sh. Pankaj Goel, FBOcumPartner of M/s Pawan Store, 1/159, Sadar Bazar, Delhi, for analysis under the provisions of FSS Act and Regulations. One part of the sample was sent to the Food Analyst for analysis. The notice in Form VA was prepared at the spot and copy of the same was given to FBO, who did not request to send the fourth part of the sample for analysis from an NABL accredited laboratory. The remaining FSAT No.12/2023 Pankaj Goel & Ors. v. FSO Page 3 of 16 two counterparts of the sample were kept in a sealed packet along with two copies of Form VI. The Food Analyst analyzed the sample and reported the sample to be misbranded because there was violation of Section 23(1) of FSS Act and Regulation no. 2.2.1.3 read with 2.3.1.5 of the FSS (P&L) Regulation vide its Report dated 05.02.2020. The Food Analyst further opined the Label Declaration "TATA Sampann High Protein Urad Kali" is misleading & likely to create an erroneous impression regarding its character.
3. Thereafter, the appellant was provided an opportunity to file an appeal u/s 46(4) of FSS Act within the stipulated period of 30 days, however, no appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the report of the Food Analyst. During the course of hearing before the Ld. Adjudicating Officer, appellants filed their reply stating therein that sampled commodity was sold by appellant nos.1 to 6 in the same condition as and when purchased by them and the sampled commodity was not tampered in any manner nor was stored/handled in violation of store conditions in any manner and that they are protected by "guarantee" clause under Section 26(4) & due diligence u/s 80 of FSS Act and thus, liable to be discharged from the present proceedings. They have further submitted that in the declaration "High Protein Urad Dal" can be safely inferred and gathered that the statement is an adjective which is describing the quality of "Dal Urad Kali" and not the brand in any manner. The Food Analyst has examined the statement "High Protein" appearing on the label of the article in FSAT No.12/2023 Pankaj Goel & Ors. v. FSO Page 4 of 16 isolation and not in totality and nowhere, it has been mentioned that the above said statement refers to the impugned Tata Sampann. The said statement clearly refers to each and every 'dal' or 'pulse' which are generally known to be the best natural sources of protein. Thereafter, Ld. Adjudicating Officer after going through the documents available on record found that the appellants have violated the provisions of FSS Act as it cannot be ignored that the sample was kept for human consumption and the same is opined to be misbranded because there was violation of Regulation No. 2.2.1.3 read with 2.3.1.5 of FSS Regulation 2011 and labeling are misleading and likely to create an erroneous impression regarding its character and passed the impugned order dated 18.04.2023 thereby imposing penalty.
GROUNDS OF APPEAL:
4. The impugned order is assailed inter alia on the grounds that the Ld. AO passed the impugned order in a mechanical manner; Ld. AO failed to appreciate that the statement "High Protein" was not clubbed with "Urad Kali", but in essence, they were two different statements. Moreover, the statement "High Protein" was linked with proper reference mark i.e. an asterisk viz. "*", and the said asterix viz. "*" was connected to a statement appearing right on the label which unambiguously stated a fact which read as "* High Protein : Dals or Pulses are known to be one of the best natural sources of protein. Protein, a macronutrient, is generally accepted to be an important building block for the body. Tata Sampann dals are FSAT No.12/2023 Pankaj Goel & Ors. v. FSO Page 5 of 16 unpolished and do not undergo artificial polishing with water, oil or leather, thereby, retaining their goodness and protein content."
Ld. AO failed to appreciate that the statement "High Protein"
was to be examined in isolation and not in totality and that the statement "High Protein" did not referred to the brand Tata Sampann in particular but was a general statement of fact with regard to the product i.e. cereal/pulses that are known to be high source of protein. The Ld. AO failed to appreciate that "High Protein Urad Kali" was a general statement of fact made in reference to cereals/pulses which are known to contain "High Protein" and as such being a factual statement, the same could not have been termed in violation of Regulation 2.2.1.3 read with Regulation 2.3.1.5 of FSS (P&L) Regulations, 2011. The Ld. AO further failed to appreciate that appellant nos. 1 to 6 were entitled for benefit of guarantee and duediligence as per provisions of Section 26(4) and 80(B)(2) of FSS Act as they were neither the manufacturer nor the packer/labeler of the sampled commodity and had sold/supplied/purchased the said commodity in original sealed condition against valid invoice/bill. The provisions of Section 47 of FSS Act were not followed at the time of sampling the commodity by the FSO. The laboratory of the Food Analyst was not recognized as required u/s 3(p) & Section 43 of FSS Act. The sanction granted under Section 36(3)
(e) of the FSS Act was granted in a routine and mechanical manner without appreciating the flaws committed by the FSO at the time of sampling. No independent public witnesses were associated by the FSO during the sampling proceedings and FSAT No.12/2023 Pankaj Goel & Ors. v. FSO Page 6 of 16 therefore, the said proceeding cannot be relied upon. The appellants were not allowed to crossexamine the witnesses in spite of submissions made in their reply.
5. The respondent filed no reply to this appeal. Arguments
6. It is contended on behalf of the appellants that there is no violation of Section 23(1) read with Regulation 2.2.1.3 & 2.3.1.5 of FSS (P&L) Regulations, 2011. The cereal/pulses are known to contain high protein, thus, the same being statement of fact and universal truth could not be termed as false or misleading statement with regard to the food contained in the package or its nutritive valued and in support, relied upon Nestle India Ltd. v State of Maharashtra 2012 (2) FAC 282 (Bombay); Sterling Agro Industrial Ltd. & Anr. v State of Uttrakhand 2014 (1) FAC 420 (Uttrakhand); Bhushan Prasad v F.I. Satyamanglam Municipality & Anr. 2015 (I) FAC 549 (Madras).
7. Ld. Counsel for the appellants further contended that the Food Analyst moreover in analysis report even did not conducted the analysis with regard to protein contents before declaring the same to be misbranded. There is no contramaterial in the said report as to how the said declaration amounted to misbranding under the referred Regulations in his analysis report and in support of his submission, he has relied upon ADM Agro Inds. V FSSAI & Anr 2015 (2) FAC 2011 (Bombay).
8. Ld. Counsel for the appellants further argued that FSAT No.12/2023 Pankaj Goel & Ors. v. FSO Page 7 of 16 appellant nos. 1 to 6 are entitled to benefit of 'guarantee' under Section 26(4) and defence of duediligence under Section 80(B) (2)(a)(i) & (d)(i) of the FSS Act not being the manufacturer/ packer of the said commodity and sold the sample in original sealed condition. In support of his submission, he has relied upon the decision in P. Unnikrishnan v F.I. Palghat 1995 Supp. (3) SCC186 (SC).
9. Per contra, Ld. Chief PP for the State/respondent has stated that it is a clear case of misbranding and there is no flaw in the impugned order. He submits that the AO has rightly appreciated the various provisions of law and there is no substance in this appeal.
10. Heard the arguments of Sh. Saurabh Awasthi & Sh. Satish Solanki, Ld. Counsel for the appellants and Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Ld. Chief PP for the State/Respondent. DECISION
11. The sample of Tata Sampann High Protein Urad Kali taken by Food Safety Officer on 21.01.2020 from FBO was sent to Food Analyst. The Food Analyst vide its report dated 05.02.2020 has opined as follows :
"The sample is misbranded because there is violation of Section 23(1) of the Food Safety & Standards Act, 2006, Regulation No.2.2.1.3 read with 2.3.1.5 of The Food Safety & Standards (Packaging and Labelling) Regulation, 2011."
12. It was on the basis of this opinion of Food Analyst, the Adjudicating Officer had imposed penalty on all appellants.
13. Ld. Counsel for the appellants has submitted that FSAT No.12/2023 Pankaj Goel & Ors. v. FSO Page 8 of 16 appellant nos. 1 to 6 are Vendors and they had received the product in a sealed condition, had not altered the product in any manner and hence, they are protected under the 'Guarantee Clause' under the Scheme of the Act.
14. Ld. Chief PP for the State has fairly conceded that appellant no.1 to 6 are the Vendors and submission made by the Ld. Counsel for the appellants holds true.
GUARANTEE AND DUE DILIGENCE
15. To understand the concept of "Guarantee and Due Diligence", Section 26(4) and 80(B)(2) of FSS Act needs to be looked into. For better appreciation of the facts, the relevant provisions are reproduced below :
"Section 26(4) in The Food Safety and Standards Act (4) No food business operator shall sell or offer for sale any article of food to any vendor unless he also gives a guarantee in writing in the form specified by regulations about the nature and quality of such article to the vendor:
Provided that a bill, cash memo, or invoice in respect of the sale of any article of food given by a food business operator to the vendor shall be deemed to be a guarantee under this section, even if a guarantee in the specified form is not included in the bill, cash memo or invoice.
80(B) Defence of due diligence (2) Without limiting the ways in which a person may satisfy the requirements of clause (1), a person satisfies those requirements if it is proved -
(a) that the commission of the offence was due to-(i) an act or default of another person; or(ii) reliance on information supplied by another person; and
(b)(i) the person carried out all such checks of the food concerned as were reasonable in all the circumstances; or (ii) it was reasonable in all the circumstances to rely on checks carried out by the person who supplied such food to the person; and
(c) that the person did not import the food into the jurisdiction from another country; and FSAT No.12/2023 Pankaj Goel & Ors. v. FSO Page 9 of 16
(d) in the case of an offence involving the sale of food, that -
(i) the person sold the food in the same condition as and when the person purchased it; or(ii) the person sold the food in a different condition to that in which the person purchased it, but that the difference did not result in any contravention of this Act or the rules and regulations made thereunder; and
(e) that the person did not know and had no reason to suspect at the time of commission of the alleged offence that the person's act or omission would constitute an offence under the relevant section."
16. As per Section 3(1)(o) of FSS Act, "food business operator" in relation to food business means a person by whom the business is carried on or owned and is responsible for ensuring the compliance of this Act, rules and regulations made thereunder.
17. Section 28(4) of FSS Act put a duty on FBO that he has to give a guarantee to the vendors in writing about the nature and quality of the product. It further provides that bill, cash memo or invoice in relation of sale of any article of food given by FBO to the vendor shall be deemed to be a guarantee under this Section, even if a guarantee in the prescribed format is not included in the bill, cash memo or invoice.
18. Section 80 of the Act provides various defences which may or may not be allowed in prosecution under this Act. Section 80(B) of the Act provides defence of 'due diligence'. The defence of due diligence provides that he had carried out all such checks of the food concerned as were reasonable in all the circumstances, the food article was not imported from another country, he sold the food in a same condition as purchased.
19. It is an admitted case of the respondent, as already FSAT No.12/2023 Pankaj Goel & Ors. v. FSO Page 10 of 16 discussed in above paras, that appellant no.16 are covered under 'guarantee' and have defence of due diligence. Thereby, the impugned order imposing penalty on appellant nos. 16 being vendors of the FBO is set aside.
MISBRANDING
20. The various relevant provisions regarding misbranding are Section 23(1) of the Act, Regulation no. 2.2.1.3 read with 2.3.1.5 of the Food Safety and Standards (Packaging and Leveling) Regulation, 2011. For better understanding, the relevant provisions are reproduce as follows :
"Section 23 Packaging and labelling of foods. -
(1) No person shall manufacture, distribute, sell or expose for sale or despatch or deliver to any agent or broker for the purpose of sale, any packaged food products which are not marked and labelled in the manner as may be specified by regulations:
Provided that the labels shall not contain any statement, claim, design or device which is false or misleading in any particular concerning the food products contained in the package or concerning the quantity or the nutritive value implying medicinal or therapeutic claims or in relation to the place of origin of the said food products.
Regulation no. 2.2.1.3 of the Food Safety and Standards (Packaging and Leveling) Regulation, 2011 Pre-packaged food shall not be described or presented on any label or in any labelling manner that is false, misleading or deceptive or is likely to create an erroneous impression regarding its character in any respect.
Regulation no. 2.3.1.5 of the Food Safety and Standards (Packaging and Leveling) Regulation, 2011 Contents on the label shall be clear, prominent, indelible and readily legible by the consumer under normal conditions of purchase and use."
21. The sole contention raised on behalf of Ld. Chief PP for the State is that the decision of the Adjudicating Officer is based upon the report of the Food Analyst who has opined the FSAT No.12/2023 Pankaj Goel & Ors. v. FSO Page 11 of 16 sample to be misbranded. It is stated that labeling on the sample is misleading and likely to create an erroneous impression regarding its character which is punishable under Section 52 of the FSS Act.
22. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that it is fact of common knowledge that "Black Gram" is a protein rich staple food containing 25% protein, which is almost three time that of cereals. It is stated that asterisk mark has been put in the words "High Protein" and on the left top corner, "High Protein & Select Grains" have been explained. It is stated that in view of the settled law, it is not a case of misbranding but the Adjudicating Authority has ignored to consider the legal position settled by various judicial pronouncements relied upon by the appellant before this court as well as before the Adjudicating Authority.
23. Though Adjudicating Authority is quasijudical body but principle of natural justice demand that at least it should give reasons for the decision, may be, in brief. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that the Adjudicating Authority in its six page order has only discussed the brief facts, case of the FSO and the defence taken by the various appellants and in the first para on page no.5. Thereafter without giving any reason and without considering the various judicial pronouncements relied upon by the appellants has held the sample to be misbranded. As per the legal jurisprudence, the decision of any authority, judicial or quasijudicial, is for the stakeholders which including the guilty person and also for the appellate authority. The appellate FSAT No.12/2023 Pankaj Goel & Ors. v. FSO Page 12 of 16 authority, while putting the impugned order to judicial scrutiny, will evaluate the reasoning given by the Adjudicating Authority in arriving to the challenged decision. But, as discussed, the impugned order is totally bereft of any reasoning as to why the food is held to be misbranded and why the submissions made by the appellants have been discarded.
24. Ld. Counsel for the appellant has urged that the declaration "High Protein Urad Dal" on the same is an adjective, it only describe the quality of the Dal in general and not the brand in any manner. It is stated that these statements were never considered by the Adjudicating Authority while imposing the fine upon them arbitrarily. Ld. Counsel for the appellant has further stated that as per Food Safety and Standards (Advertising & Claims) Regulations, 2018, subject to the conditions mentioned therein a claim of food article containing the nutrient mentioned in column (2) of ScheduleI, is permissible. He submits that at the Sl. No. 11 "Protein" is mentioned and same is permissible to be advertised subject to the conditions mentioned in column (4) of ScheduleI. In support of his submission, Ld. Counsel for the appellant has relied upon the observations made by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Nestle India Ltd. v State of Maharashtra (Supra). In this case, the label of product "Maggi Noodles", contains the words "Maggi Noodles are packed with the power of Protein and Calcium. Protein helps improve muscle growth. Calcium helps build strong bones". The label further contains "Good to know - Protein and Calcium FSAT No.12/2023 Pankaj Goel & Ors. v. FSO Page 13 of 16 help improve growth". It further reads "TASTE BHI, HEALTH BHE for your child". The label of product "Maggi Teekha Masala Sauce" reads "Good to remember - Tomatoes are a good source of lycopene - an anti oxidant which helps strengthen your body's natural defenses.
25. After considering the various provisions of the Act, the court has observed that the words mentioned on the product is merely a statement of facts and as provided in Rule 39, it does not states in any way that such words are not implying or suggesting in any way that the food is recommended, prescribed or approved by the medical practitioner. The relevant portion of para no. 17 of the same is reproduced as follows: "The plain reading of the said provision, on the backdrop of the words mentioned on the label of the food products, namely, the "Maggi Noodles" and "Maggi Teekha Masala Sauce", I find considerable merit in the submissions of Shri Sunil Manohar, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. The requirement as suggested by the provisions of Rule 39 is the words recommended by the medical profession or any such words implying or suggesting that the food is recommended, prescribed or approved by the medical practitioner is certainly with a view to prohibit or sale of such a food product which would create an impression in the mind of purchaser that as the product is recommended by the medical profession or medical practitioner, it is beneficial for his health. The object is certainly laudable i.e. to prevent the general public from misleading claims of the manufacture or the seller of food product. On this touchstone if the labels are scanned and assessed with the objectivity, one would find that the words used on the label are the statement of facts. In the case of the product, namely "Maggi Noodles", the words reflected about the protein and calcium and the product "Maggi Teekha Masala Sauce" is packed with protein and calcium is merely a statement of facts. The label nowhere suggests that the said product is recommended by the medical profession or medical practitioner so as to meet the requirement under Rule 39. Insofar as the nutrient values contained in the product, the data is separately reflected on the label. In view of these facts, the conclusion arrived at by the authority passing the order dated 10.12.2009 i.e. the Food Inspector and Licensing Authority is certainly erroneous. The order also suffers from a FSAT No.12/2023 Pankaj Goel & Ors. v. FSO Page 14 of 16 mechanical approach by the authority as the petitioner/company in its reply submitted that the statements about the protein and calcium are the statements of facts and the submission in the reply that there is nothing on the label either in clear words or any such words to imply with the product is recommended, prescribed or approved by any medical practitioner or is approved for medical purpose....... "Tomatoes are a good source of lycopene - an antioxidant which would strengthen your body's natural defenses"
and as such it contravenes Rule 39. Reading the words appearing on the label as it is, it only reflects a general statement that the "Tomatoes are a good source of lycopene - an antioxidant which would strengthen your body's natural defenses". The label nowhere suggests that the product "Maggi Teekha Masala Sauce" is either recommended by medical practitioner or recommended for medical purpose by medical practitioner. In that effect, the observation of the appellate authority that the petitioner/company through the label making an advertisement of its product showing that the product contains large scale of lycopene; whereas lycopene proportion is very minimal in the product and as such the consumer is being misguided. These observations of the appellate authority are farfetched."
26. In Sterling Agro Industrial Ltd. & Anr. v State of Uttrakhand (Supra), some sample of skimmed milk powder word held to be misbranded by the Food Analyst. The court has observed that the statements about the protein and calcium are the statements of facts and there is nothing on the label either in clear words or any such words to imply that the product is recommended, prescribed or approved by any medial practitioner or is approved for medical purpose. The relevant para 12, for better appreciation of the facts, is reproduced as follows : "Writing of a statement, per se, is not barred by any Rule. Rule 32 of the PFA Rules rather permits every prepackaged food to carry a label. To make it simpler, every prepackaged food may carry a label, but such label should not contain false or misleading statement. Rule 32(b)(2)(vi)(C) of the PFA Rules permits the label to contain the amount of nutrient for which a nutrition or health claim is made and the explanation appended thereto says what is 'nutrition claim' or 'health claim'. In other words, 'nutrition claim' and 'health claim' are permitted, so long as they are not deceptive or false. Nowhere it is the case of Food Inspector that the label carrying the words 'dream of healthy India' is deceptive or false."
27. To augment his submission that pulses are high source of protein, Ld. Counsel for appellants has relied upon the literature of FSAT No.12/2023 Pankaj Goel & Ors. v. FSO Page 15 of 16 APFPEDA (Agricultural & Processed Food Products Export Development Authority) stated to be working under the Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Government of India. It is mentioned here that Pulses are one of the important food crops globally due to higher protein content. Pulses are the major sources of protein in the diet.
28. As already discussed, there is asterisk mark on the statement "High Protein" and same has been explained at the top left of the sample containing the following statements i.e. High Protein and Select Grains. Same are reproduced as follows:
"High Protein: Dals or Pulses are knows to be one of the best natural sources of protein. Protein, a macronutrient is generally accepted to be an important building block for the body. Tata Sampann dals are unpolished and do not undergo retaining their goodness and protein content."
"Select Grains: Your healthy bowl of dal has never tested better. Tata Sampann dals are specially sourced under the Grow More Pulse Program an initiative of Tata Chemicals Ltd. and Rallis India Ltd. under this program farmers are trained by experts and follow best practices that result in better yields and fine quality grains."
29. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the sample is not found violating Section 23 of the Act and Regulation 2.2.1.3 and 2.2.1.5 of the Food Safety & Standards (Packaging & Labelling) Regulation, 2011, as held by the Food Analyst and then by the Adjudicating Authority. The appeal is thereby accepted and the impugned order is set aside. Any fine deposited by the appellants before this court be released to them. A copy of this order with the record of the Adjudicating Authority be sent back.
30. File of appeal be consigned to the Record Room.
SANJAY Digitally signed by
SANJAY GARG - I
Announced in the open Court GARGGARG-I)
(SANJAY - I Date: 2023.10.18
16:32:17 +0530
on 18th October, 2023 Principal District & Sessions Judge
New Delhi District
Patiala House Courts, New Delhi (ss)
FSAT No.12/2023 Pankaj Goel & Ors. v. FSO Page 16 of 16