Single-judge court allowed petitioner challenge against fruit of investigation framing charge on policy ground that first time culpable offense did not warrant prosecution.
Impugned order of framing notice and consequent proceedings arising out of complaint case No.135/2007 quashed.
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.
PRADEEP KUMAR MANTRI & ORS
..... Petitioner Represented by: Mr. D.K. Mathur, Adv.
versus
STATE THR. FOOD INSPECTOR (PFA)
..... Respondent Represented by: Mr. Ashok Kr. Garg, APP. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
MUKTA GUPTA, J. (ORAL)
CRL.M.C. 2274/2012 Page 1 of 5
was declared in a misleading manner for the reason the date of manufacture was not mentioned. However, the sample conformed to the standards.
CRL.M.C. 2274/2012 Page 2 of 5
particulars of the labeling on the container or packet was only a technical offence and a written warning should be given to the party committing the breach drawing its attention to Rule 32.
held:
“ 17 . Rule 32(f) of the PFA Rules framed under the PFA Act requires for a manufacturer to declare the date, month and year in which the commodity is manufactured, packed or prepacked on the packet. This declaration is required to be given if the „best before‟ date of the product is more than 3 months. 18. Rule 32(i) of the PFA Rules, demonstrates the manner in which the said information is required to be displayed on the packet.
19 . In the instant case, declaration under rule 32(i) is “best before 9 months from packing. Since the month and year of manufacture of the food article i.e. processed cheese is clearly disclosed on the packet, it cannot be said that the consumer would be mislead from the terms „best before 9 months from packing‟. The consumer, under these circumstances, would be clear in his mind to consider the best before from the date of manufacturing. The processed cheese conformed the standard on analysis.
20. Prima facie, therefore, it cannot be said that the sample was misbranded because misleading statement was given on
CRL.M.C. 2274/2012 Page 3 of 5
the label with respect to best before date. The consumer is provided with sufficient information as required under the Act and Rule 32 to know about the genuineness of the product and also to enable him to make a decision whether to purchase the said food article or not. Even if, the words “best before 9 months from manufacturing or packing‟ are not contained on the packet; instead the words best within 4 months are mentioned on the packet, it would not in any way mislead the consumer. Hence by no stretch of imagination the product could be termed as misbranded. There is no adulteration in the product. As per the information disclosed on the packet, it cannot be said that there is misbranding, only because the date of packaging has not been disclosed; specially when the month and year of manufacturing is specifically disclosed.
X X X X
27. The alleged offence of violation of Rule 32 (f) and (i) was found to have been committed in the year 2005. At the relevant time department policy No. F6(228)/85/ENF/P.F.A. was in force and the said policy was cancelled, modified or withdrawn vide order No. 5/07 dated 14.09.2007. As per the said policy, cases of breach of Rule 32, since pertained to the particulars of the labeling on the container or packet, were technical offences, the party affected was to be given a written warning drawing its attention to Rule 32, which required of date, month and year of manufacturing to be exhibited on the labels affixed on tin or the packet. It was only if the violation was repeated after a written warning, the party committing the offence second time had to be prosecuted. As per this policy, pending cases pertaining to breach of Rule 32 being of technical nature were decided to be disposed of accordingly.
28. It is not the case of the prosecution that petitioners were given warning by way of a notice drawing their attention to Rule 32 which provided for particulars to be exhibited on the sampled tin or the packet, and it was a case of second breach of Rule 32, i.e. in other words the offence was committed for the second time and therefore, the petitioners were liable to be prosecuted.
CRL.M.C. 2274/2012 Page 4 of 5
29. The policy being in force at the relevant time should have been adhered to by the department before it decided to file a complaint in the court for offences under Section 7/16 of the PFA Act. The petitioners are therefore within their rights to seek protection under the said policy which was in existence at the relevant time. ”
(MUKTA GUPTA) JUDGE
JANUARY 16, 2017 ‘ga’
CRL.M.C. 2274/2012 Page 5 of 5
3 issues framed by the court
Whether prosecution under the PFA Act for violation of labeling rules requires a written warning when the regulatory policy so mandates.
Whether a first technical violation of Rule 32 of the PFA Rules bars prosecution without prior warning.
Whether criminal proceedings should continue when the relevant departmental policy requiring warning was in force at the time of the alleged offense.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
S.S. Gokul Krishnan & Ors. Vs. State through Food Inspector, Govt. of NCT of DelhiExplained¶12
S.S. Gokul Krishnan & Ors. Vs. State through Food Inspector, Govt. of NCT of Delhi 2009 (1) JCC 675
Ravinder Garg Vs. State through Food Inspector, Govt. of NCT of DelhiExplained¶12
Ravinder Garg Vs. State through Food Inspector, Govt. of NCT of Delhi Crl.M.C. 27/2010
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Pradeep Kumar Mantri & Ors.
State Thr. Food Inspector (PFA)
MUKTA GUPTA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
