NESTLE INDIA LTD. Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the impugned order dated 01.12.2011 whereby the charge had been framed against the petitioner company for violating the provisions of Sections 3, 6(1)(a), 6(1)(b) & 6(1)(c) of the Infant Milk Substitutes, Feeding Bottles and Infant Foods (Regulation of Productions, Supply and Distribution) Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as the IMS Act). A detailed order had been passed. The petitioner submits that in view of the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court, the controversy which was raging before the trial Court pursuant to which the aforenoted charge has been framed against him has been set to rest. This judgment of the Division Bench was passed in W.P. (C) No. 4832/1995 Nestle India Limited and Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. delivered on 31.05.2013.

(2.) THE aforenoted writ petition had been filed seeking two reliefs. The second relief is relevant and reads herein as under: -

(3.) RECORD shows that the petitioner company was the manufacturer of infant food products namely 'Lactogen' and 'Cerelac'. On 30.11.1994, a complaint was filed by respondent No. 2, an organization namely Association on Consumer Action on Safety and Health (ACASH). This complaint was premised on the averment that the petitioner company was violating the provisions of Sections 6 & 7 of the IMS Act as the products of the petitioner company were printing "breast milk is best for your baby" instead of "mother's milk is best for your baby". It was also alleged that notice was not printed in its Hindi equivalent in Devanagari script; English version contained some deliberate alterations which were violative of the IMS Act and IMS Rules. Further allegation in the complaint being that the petitioner company had infringed Section 6(1)(c) of the IMS Act as the mandatory warning that infant milk substitutes or infant food is not the sole source of nourishment for the infant had not been inscribed properly on the packaging of the milk substitute products; violation of Rule 7 (a) of the IMS Rules was also alleged as the typed letters on the boxes were less than 5 mm in size as prescribed; there was also a violation of the provisions of Section 2(f) of the IMS Act by printing the words "from 4 months of age" instead of "after the age of 4 months". This was the gist of the complaint.