ACHAMMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners are persons against whom prosecution was initiated alleging that the word "non fruit" on the label of sample of the food product taken from them is misleading and hence the samples were misbranded as per S.2(ix)(g) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Cases were taken on the basis of the complaints filed by the Food Inspector on the basis of report of the public analyst. Report of the public analyst is that the word "non fruit" on the label of the sample is misleading and hence the sample is misbranded as per S.2(ix)(g) of the Act.

(2.) Petitions are filed mainly for quashing the proceedings in the case against the petitioners. There is also prayer that Item A.20.01 of Appendix-B of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules insofar as it directs that the label has to mention the word "synthetic" is ultra vires Art.14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Declaration sought by some of the petitioners is that marketing of vinegar products by labelling them as "non fruit" instead of "synthetic" does not amount to misbranding.

(3.) The Fruit Products Order, 1955 was issued by the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by S.3 of the Essential Commodities Act. Clause.2(d) of the Order defines "fruit product". Clause.11(2) provides that synthetic vinegars, beverages, syrups, sharbats and other products associated with fruits and vegetables shall be clearly and conspicuously marked on the label as "SYNTHETIC". Clause.12 of the above Order says that every manufacturer to whom any directions or order is issued in pursuance of any provision of the Order shall be bound to comply with such direction or order and any failure on the part of the manufacturer to comply with such direction or order shall be deemed to be a contravention of the provision of the Order.