CADBURY INDIA LIMITED Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code"), the applicants seek quashing of Criminal Case No.1221 of 2007 pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Kapadvanj alleging commission of the offence punishable under section 7(ii)(v) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

(2.) The respondent No.2 Food Inspector, Nadiad lodged a complaint in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Kapadvanj against the applicants herein and other co-accused, stating that he had, during the course of his duties, visited a shop doing business in the name and style of Hariom Agency, situated at Bhavsarwad, Kathlal, District Kheda and had purchased three wholesale packs of new Cadbury 5-Star Juniors Filled Chocolate for the purpose of getting them analyzed in the laboratory. It is alleged that on the package, it was mentioned amongst other things that it is manufactured by Dr. Writers Food Products Private Limited for and on behalf of Cadbury India Limited, that is, the accused No.4 and 2 respectively. It is further stated in the complaint that after following due procedure of law, the Food Inspector forwarded the sample to the Public Analyst for the purpose of analysis thereof. The Public Analyst forwarded his report dated 12.10.2006 to the complainant which revealed that the aforesaid new Cadbury 5-Star Juniors Filled Chocolate (wholesale company pack) did not show the list of ingredients on the wholesale pack or on the retail pack and therefore, there was a violation of rule 32(b) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"), amounting to 'misbranding' as defined in section 2(ix)(k) of the Act, which is a breach of section 7(ii)(v) and is punishable under section 16 of the Act. It appears that thereafter, the respondent No.2 obtained the consent of the Local Health Authority on 15.7.2007 for filing the complaint against the applicants and other accused. Pursuant to the said complaint, the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Kapadvanj issued process against the applicants herein and other accused. Being aggrieved, the applicants have moved the present application seeking quashing of the said complaint under section 482 read with section 483 of the Code.

(3.) Mr. Bhadrish Raju, learned advocate for the applicants invited attention to the complaint lodged by the respondent No.2 Food Inspector to submit that it was the case of the complainant that the package in question was a wholesale package consisting of 55 retail units of 7 grams each. The attention of the court was drawn to the provisions of rule 32 of the Rules and more particularly, to clause (b) thereof, which makes provision for the names of ingredients used in the product in descending order of their composition by weight or volume, as the case may be. It was pointed out that the proviso thereto provides that in case of a package weighing 20 grams or less, the particulars under clause (b) are not required to be satisfied. It was further pointed out that the subsequent proviso provides that in case of wholesale package, the particulars under clauses (b), (f), (g) and (h) need not be specified. It was submitted that in the facts of the present case, as is evident on a plain reading of the complaint, the package in question is a wholesale package comprised of retail units of less than 20 grams, under the circumstances, there was no requirement under the Rules for mentioning the ingredients of the article of food either on the retail unit or on the wholesale package. The entire complaint is, therefore, based on a misreading of the relevant rules inasmuch as, there being no requirement under the rules for mentioning the ingredients either on the wholesale package or the retail unit weighing less than 20 grams, there was no breach of provisions of section 32(b) of the Rules. It was, accordingly, submitted that the entire complaint being based upon misreading of the relevant rules, deserves to be quashed and set aside.