PRINCE GUTKA LIMITED Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against notice issued to the petitioner for offence under Section 7 read with Sections 16 and Section 2(ix)(k) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and Rules 32(e) and (f) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules (hereinafter called the "Act" and the "Rules" respectively for short). 1.2. The petitioner contends that the Trial Court failed to appreciate that since each packet contained 5.5g of the product, the particulars required under Clause (b) or (e) and (f) were not required to be mentioned on the packet. It is also contended that the First Proviso below clause (f) of Rule 32 of the Act specifically provides that if any package weighs less than 20g particulars required under Clause (b) need not be specified. The learned Trial Court has also failed to appreciate that Sub-clause (iii) to the Fifth Proviso below Rule 32(f) specifically provided that if net contents in any package of food weighs 20g or 20ml or less, then the requirement of declaration as to month and year of manufacturing it under Clause (f) may not be complied with. The Trial Court has wrongly held that there was violation of Second Proviso appearing below Clause (f) of Rule 32. His submission is that the Second Proviso being an exception to the First Proviso applies alone to the requirements of Clause (b) of Rule 32. It is vehemently submitted that the Second Proviso does not govern all the Clauses (a) to (f). Since it falls immediately after proviso relating to Clause (b) it naturally qualifies Clause (b) only. The distinction between declaration and particulars used in different clauses implies the same thing in the context of the present case, specially in the light of Rule 33. 1.3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposed this prayer and supported the impugned order of giving notice but only to the extent of violation of Clause (f) of Rule 32.

(2.) . For proper appreciation, it may be mentioned that a sample of 'Prince Gukta' was taken by the Food Inspector. Each packet of the sample weighed 275g each and each packet was multi-piece package containing 50 packets of 5.5g each. Relevant part of the report of the Public Analyst dated 3rd April, 1995 (photocopy whereof has been shown by the learned Counsel for the petitioner) reads as under:

(3.) Having heard the parties' Counsel, it is desirable to reproduce relevant portion of Rule 32 of the Act, which reads as under: