Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings for violation of Rule 32(e) of PFA Rules regarding missing batch numbers. Court held the rule invalid per Supreme Court precedent, quashing the proceedings as misuse of court process.
Quashed the criminal proceedings, summoning order, and revisional order.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:10712
Court No. - 14
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1507 of 2016
Applicant :- Braj Kumar Shukla Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Applicant :- Pradyumn Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.
"8. Attention of the Court has also been drawn towards the report furnished by the Public Analyst, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, which has been appended alongwith Annexure No.1. In the opinion, the Public Analyst has said that Rule 32 (e) of the Rules of 1955 has been violated because Batch number has not been given on the product.
9. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Dwarka Nath case (supra) has held thus in para 23 :
"There is no definition of the expression "batch number" or "code number" either in the Act or the Rules. It is also admitted that even assuming that the batch or code number has to be given, there is no further obligation to specify in the label the date of packing and manufacture of the article of food or the period within which the article of food has to be utilised, used or consumed. In the absence of any obligation to give the particulars mentioned by us above, the public or the purchaser will not be able to find out even the freshness of the contents of a container. Therefore, it follows that merely giving an artificial batch number or code number will not be of any use to the public or to the purchaser. In view of all these circumstances, we are of the opinion that rule 32(e) is beyond the rule making power even under Section 23 (1) (d) of the Act. The appellants could not be convicted for any violation of clause (e) of the rule 32 as the said provision, as pointed out above, is invalid."
As a result the present application is allowed and proceeding of Complaint Case No. 2453 of 2008, under Sections 7/16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (State Vs. Braj Kumar Shukla), Police Station Ajgain, District Unnao, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Unnao as well as revisional order dated 19.1.2016 passed by Special Judge (E.C. Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, Unnao in Criminal Revision No. 53 of 2015 as well as summoning order is hereby quashed.
Order Date :- 19.2.2025 Anurag Singh
Digitally signed by :- ANURAG SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
2 issues framed by the court
Whether non-mention of batch/lot number on a food product constitutes an offence under Rule 32(e) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955?
Whether the criminal proceedings based solely on violation of Rule 32(e) amount to misuse of the process of the court?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
M/s Flavorad India Thru Prop. (Complaint Case) Vs. The state of U.P. and anotherRelied on¶9
M/s Flavorad India Thru Prop. (Complaint Case) Vs. The state of U.P. and another in Case No. U/s 482/378/407 No. 207 of 2013 decided by this Court on 17.04.2013
Dwarka Nath and another Vs. The Municipal Corporation of DelhiRelied on¶12
Dwarka Nath and another Vs. The Municipal Corporation of Delhi
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Braj Kumar Shukla
Subhash Chandra Sharma
Anurag Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
