NIRMA LIMITED Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant Dr. Amarjit Lal purchased three sealed packets of "NIRMA Shudh Salt" on payment of Rs. 24/- (Rupees Twenty Four only), against a valid receipt. The sealed packets were submitted to the Public Analyst, Punjab, Chandigarh for analysis The Public Analyst reported as under:-

(2.) A perusal of the impugned order reveals, that the product sold by the Appellant was misbranded. It was the vehement contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellant, that the description of the name and address on the product, does not justify the conclusion recorded by the High Court. It was the submission of the learned Counsel for the Appellant, that the mandate of the statutory provisions under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 does not require any such description. Before we delve into the details of the statutory provisions, it is pertinent to record the details in respect of the manufacturer's address and the address of the manufacturing unit, depicted on the packets sent for analysis.

(3.) Insofar as the issue in hand is concerned, reference may be made to Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, which is being reproduced hereunder: