Allowed

Parle Agro Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Punjab Th. Govt. Food Inspector

Punjab & Haryana HC11 Nov 2011CRM-M/10071/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the petitioner's challenge against a food adulteration complaint. Relying on a prior Division Bench decision, the Court held that a PIN Code suffices as a complete address under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, quashing the complaint against the licensor as it did not violate the labeling requirement.

What did the court decide?

Complaint No.98/6.3.06 dated 06.03.2006 and all consequential proceedings against the petitioner were quashed.

Parle Agro Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Punjab Th… — Consumer Protection | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

CRM NO.M-10071 OF 2010

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

¶5

CRM NO.M-10071 OF 2010 DATE OF DECISION 11.11.2011

Parle Agro Pvt. Ltd.

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH.

¶12

Present: Mr. Ashim Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶13

Mr. Vishal Munjal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab.

¶14

AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral)

¶15

Reply on behalf of respondent filed in Court is taken on record. Copy given to the counsel opposite. On request made by the counsel for the parties, case is taken up for final disposal.

¶16

In this petition, as per the petitioner sample of Mango Frooti Drink contained in six packets/tetra packs of 200 ml each was taken by the Government Food Inspector, Amritsar from the premises of Manjit Singh situated at G.T.Road, Main Bazar, Taran-Taran, District Amritsar. The sample was sent to the Public Analyst, Punjab at Chandigarh, who after analysing the same, opined that the product has not been labelled in accordance with the provision of Rule 32 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules 1955') as complete address of its manufacturer has not been given. Hence the sample is misbranded. On receipt of the said report, Government Food

¶17

CRM NO.M-10071 OF 2010

¶18

-2-

¶19

Inspector, Amritsar, initiated proceedings against Shri Manjit Singh from whom the sample was taken and M/s EPIC Food Products Pvt. Ltd., the manufacturer of the product as also M/s Parle Agro Pvt. Ltd., who was the licensor for the product. It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that Form VI, which was given by the Food Inspector while taking the sample, clearly reflects that the complete address of the licensor has been given and only of the name of the State is missing but the PIN Code has been mentioned therein. He accordingly prays that the complete address having been furnished by the petitioner-Company, the present complaint qua the petitioner cannot sustain. In any case, his submission that he is not manufacturer of the product and therefore, cannot be held liable under Rule 32 of the Rules, 1955.

¶20

Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the manufacturer i.e. M/s EPIC Food Products Pvt. Ltd. has not given its complete address as the State where it is situated, is not mentioned nor its PIN code number was given therein. He could not dispute that the PIN Code number qua the petitioner stands mentioned in the product. His assertion is that since the petitioner is the licensor therefore, he is equally liable for the non-mentioning of the complete address of the manufacturer.

¶21

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case.

¶22

A similar question had been arisen before a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Hindustan Liver Limited Vs. Government Food Inspector, Hoshiarpur and another in Criminal Misc. No.M-40359 of 2007 wherein it was held that the substance of the Rule is satisfied, when the name of the manufacturer and the address, which may be PIN Code is

¶23

CRM NO.M-10071 OF 2010

¶24

-3-

¶25

sufficient to identify and locate the manufacturer. It is the substance, which is important and not the form thereof. Therefore, the expression 'Complete Address' appearing in Rule 32(c)(i) of the Rules, 1955 does not necessarily include the name of the State as well. This decision was rendered by the Division Bench on 18.07.2011.

¶26

In view of the above, the contention as raised by the counsel for the petitioner, in the present petition, requires to be accepted as the Division Bench of this Court has held the term 'Complete Address' as defined under Rule 10 of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 means the Postal Address or even the Postal Index Number. As per the terms of Section 3 of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976, the provisions of Rule 10 providing for printing of Postal Address or Postal Index Number shall be deemed to be complete address for the purpose of Act or the Rules framed thereunder as well upto 13.01.2007. As in this petition the sample was taken before the said date, the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court would be squarely covering the case of the petitioners, as the petitioners, although, have not mentioned the name of the State but have mentioned the Postal Index Number, which the Division Bench of this Court has found to be sufficient compliance of Rule 32(c)(i) of the Rules, 1955.

¶27

In view of the above, the present petition is allowed qua the petitioner by quashing the Complaint No.98/6.3.06 dated 06.03.2006 (Annexure P-4) along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

¶28

(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE

¶29

11.11.2011 adhikari

Parle Agro Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Punjab Th. Govt. Food Inspector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parle Agro Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Punjab Th. Govt. Food Inspector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lachhwant Singh Vs Union of India and Ors.

Manpreet Saini Vs State of Haryana

Sukhpal Kaur and Another Vs State of Punjab

Parle Agro Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Punjab Th. Govt. Food Inspector

Pushpinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others

Gulzar Mohamad Vs State of Punjab