STATE OF M. P. Vs. PRAKASH SINGH CHAUHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondents 1 and 2 and some others were charged for an offence punishable under Sections 7 and 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (the Act) on the ground that they had misbranded their product. It is the prosecution case that when the Food Inspector went to purchase bottled water manufactured and bottled by the said respondents, the Assistant Plant In-charge of the respondents' factory told the said Inspector that the water contained in the bottle which is being sold to him was mineral water and it is based on the said representation of that Assistant Plant In-charge, the said Inspector purchased the mineral water which, when analysed, was not found to be mineral water. However, it is to be noted that the label of the bottle containing water which was sold to the said Inspector did nowhere mention that the water contained in the said bottle was mineral water.

(2.) Obviously, based on the representation made by the Assistant Plant In-charge to the said Inspector, the respondents and others were charged for offences mentioned as hereinabove. The High Court by the impugned order has allowed the revision petition filed by the respondents herein and directed the discharge of the respondents on the basis that no case was made out to proceed against these respondents.

(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.. It is an admitted fact that there is no mention on the label of the bottle that the water contained in the bottle was "mineral water". The question then is: would an oral representation made by a staff member of the manufacturing company amount to misbranding as contemplated in the Act