T R REGHULAL Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are accused 6 and 7 in a prosecution under the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The crux of the allegations against the petitioners is that the 8th accused had manufactured adulterated article in question - Ragi Puttu Podi which the first accused vendor has sold to the Food Inspector. The precise allegation is that the article is misbranded in as much as there is a statement on the packet that "doctors also advise the product".

(2.) The petitioners have come to this court with the prayer that the prosecution in so far as it relates to the petitioners, that is accused 6 and 7, may be quashed.

(3.) What are the reasons Two reasons are urged by the petitioners. First of all, it is contended that the article cannot be said to be misbranded in as much as the label does not contain any statement that the food article in question - Ragi Puttu Podi is advised by the doctors. That the packet contains a statement "doctors also advise" is not disputed. But according to the petitioners, the said words must be held to relate to the later words "a tasty breakfast". In short, the contention is that the label only shows that doctors advise a tasty breakfast and not that the food article in question has been advised by the doctors for consumption.