CONSUMER ACTION GROUP Vs. CADBURY INDIA LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, Consumer Action Group, filed a complaint, being ST No. 55/ 90 in the court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate alleging that the complainant had purchased two packets of Cadbury's Butter Glucose Biscuits from Accused No. 3 M/s. S. Pottivelu and Sons, S. P. central Stores, M. G. Road, Trivandrum on 20/12/1989 and those packets were found not (abetted in accordance with the requirements of Rule 32 (b) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). It was alleged that there was misbranding of an article of food within the meaning of Section 2 (ix) (k) and as a consequence there has been contravention of the provisions of Section 7 (2) punishable under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Along with the complaint, the complainant filed Sanction Order NO. PFA2-130714/89/dhs dated 22/1/1990 issued by the Director, Health Services and a cash memo dated 20th December, 1989 issued by M/s S. Pottivelu and Sons (A-3) , evidencing sale of "misbranded biscuits". The learned trial court took cognizance of the matter and issued process against A-1 to A-3. The respondent-herein (A-1) filed a petition under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure in the High Court on 13/11/1991, seeking quashing of the complaint and proceedings taken by the trial court thereon which was allowed. Aggrieved thereby, the complainant has filed this appeal by special leave.

(2.) The appeal came to be listed for hearing before a division bench of this court but since there was difference of opinion between the two learned Judges, constituting the bench, on an interpretation of Section 20 of the Act, the matter was referred to a three Judge bench. That is how, the appeal is before us.

(3.) We find that the complaint, as such, filed by the appellant, was not maintainable on facts and that being the position, we are not inclined to express any opinion on the question, on which there was difference of opinion between the two learned Judges of the Division Bench.