WOCKHARDT LIMITED Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT application is filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash and set aside the order dated 18.02.2010 passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Court No.7, Bhavnagar below application Exh.19 in Criminal Case No.5490 of 1997.

(2.) THE applicant is a company incorporated under the companies act. On 10.07.1997, Food Inspector had visited the premises of M/s. Cambay Pharma Distributor and collected samples of dexolac rice manufactured by the applicant company. The samples collected by the Food Inspector from the said godown were forwarded to the public analyst for examination and report and the public analyst reported that a picture of mother and infant were appearing on the samples sent by the food inspector and same did not confirm with help provisions of section 37(b)(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short 'the Act') and amounted to misbranding under section 2(9) of the Act. On the basis of said report, Food Inspector filed complaint against the applicant company and others for commission of offence punishable under section 16 of the Act. The applicant submits that product in question was a waning product prescribed as complimentary diet in addition to mothers milk and not breast milk substitute. The said fact was further clarified by the amendment of Rule 37(b)(2) which specifically provided that the provisions applied to infant milk substitute and not to infant food. The applicant submits that the company had made a valid nomination as required under subsection 2 of section 17 of the Act and therefore, only the person nominated could be proceeded against alongwith the company. The applicants submitted application Ex.19 before the learned Magistrate and prayed that they be discharged from the charges levelled in the complaint. Learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Court No.7, Bhavnagar passed order dated 18.02.2010 below application Exh.19 in Criminal Case No.5490 of 1997 and rejected the said application. Hence, present application.

(3.) LEARNED advocate for the applicant submits that entire complaint is based on misreading of the statutory provisions. It is submitted that product in question was a weaning product prescribed as a complimentary diet in addition to mothers milk and not a breast milk substitute. Undisputely, the product has been marketed as an infant food and not an infant milk substitute. No offence as alleged has been committed. It is submitted that complainant has arraigned the entire board of directors of the company as accused. For above submissions, learned advocate for the applicant has relied upon following decision: -