PEPSI FOOD P. LTD Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are two petitions bearing No. 2675/04 and 2679/04 filed by Ms/ Pepsi Food Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Pepsico India Holdings Ltd., respectively under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of a complaint under Section 16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, respectively. Both these cases are taken up together as the facts and the points of law raised in these two petitions for quashing of the complaints and the consequent proceedings are identical.

(2.) In Crl.M.C. 2679/04, a sample of 'Lehar Pepsi Mango Fruit Drink' was taken on 12.7.2002 from M/s Pearl Drinks Ltd., B-42, Lawrence Road, Industrial Area, Delhi-35. The said sample was analyzed by the Public Analyst and it was found to be not conforming to the standards because being fortified with Vitamin 'C' the quantity of Ascorbic Acid was less than the prescribed minimum limit of 40 mgm/100 gms and thus in violation of Rule 40(3) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. In addition to this, the sample was also misbranded for alleged violation of Rule 32(e) and 32A of the Rules.

(3.) The complaint against both the petitioners came to be filed after obtaining the requisite sanction from the Secretary Medical on 26.2.2004. The accused persons had put in their appearance in response to the summons having been issued to them and they exercised their right under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, accordingly, the second counter part of the respective sample was sent to the Central Food Laboratory (hereinafter referred to as 'CFL'), Pune and a report was received. By virtue of Section 13(3) of PFA Act as prayed, the report of the CFL supersedes the report of the public analyst. According to the report of CFL, the said sample was found conforming to the standards, however, so far as the labeling of the sample was concerned, it opined that the sample contravenes Rule 32(e) of the PFA Rules inasmuch as, the batch number was not mentioned on the label.