Prafulla C. Pant, J.
1. By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.), the petitioner has sought quashing of the criminal complaint case No. 315 of 2003, State v. Bhawan Singh and Ors., relating to offence punishable under Section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainital.
2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the papers on record. 2
3. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner-M/s Britannia Industries Ltd, is company engaged in manufacturing/marketing various products such as biscuits, under the umbrella trademark 'BRITANNIA', including the sub-brand 'TIGER'. The Food Inspector, took the sample of six packets of TIGER biscuits from M/s Negi General Store, Chhada Garam Pani, Nainital, on 29.04.2002 and one of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst, Lucknow, for analysis. The Public Analyst, in its report dated 05.06.2002, reported everything O.K. in respect of the sample, except the fact that only code number and batch number was not mentioned in the sample. After obtaining sanction from the Local Health Authority on 28.01.2003, the Food Inspector, filed the impugned criminal complaint before the trial court on 05.02.2003.
4. The proceedings are challenged before this Court by the petitioner on the ground that as per the report of the Public Analyst, itself, the product in question was not found adulterated nor misbranded. The only violation, mentioned in the report is that as required under Rule 32(e) of The Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, code number and the batch number was not mentioned in the sample packet. In this connection, attention of this Court is drawn to the case of Dwarka Nath and Anr. v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi AIR 1971 1844, wherein the Apex Court has held Clause (e) of Rule 32, of the aforesaid Rules ultra vires.
5. Clause (e) of Rule 32, requires that Lot/Code/Batch, as a mark of identification by which the food can be traced in the manufacture and identified in distribution, must be mentioned in the label. The Supreme Court in the case of Dwarka Nath and Anr. (Supra), has observed in para-23 and 24 as under:.It is difficult for us to appreciate how the giving of the batch number or the code number alone without giving any further particulars such as date of manufacture of the article of food and the period within which the said article has to be utilised, used or consumed and the quantity of the article in a container, will prevent the public or the purchaser being deceived or misled as to the character, quality or quantity of the article.... We are not able to find any rational or even a remote connection between the batch or code number artificially given by a packer and the public or the purchaser being prevented from being deceived or misled as to the character, quality or quantity of the article, contained in a sealed tin..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....
6. After the aforesaid judgment was passed by the Apex Court, an amendment has been made in Section 23(1)(d) in the year 1976, by adding expression 'or to preventing adulteration', and further amendment has been made in Clause (e) of Rule 32 by adding a proviso. After the amendment made in Section 23(1)(d), Central Government, has the power to make the Rule as contained in Rule 32(e) but since in the present case, all the reports relating to food articles on the point of adulteration and misbranding are negative, and in favour of the manufacturer (petitioner), as such, merely non mentioning of batch number, by itself, cannot be a sufficient ground to prosecute the manufacturer or the person from whom the sample was purchased. It is pertinent to mention here that present case is neither one relating to adulteration nor misbranding.
7. In the above circumstances, in view of the principle of law, laid down in Dwarka Nath case (Supra), the impugned prosecution is liable to the quashed. Accordingly, the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed and proceedings of criminal case No. 315 of 2003, State v. Bhawan Singh and Ors., relating to offence punishable under Section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainital, are hereby quashed.