CADBURY INDIALIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER No. 1 is a Company incorporated under the Indian Companies act, 1913 and carries on the business, inter alia, in various kinds of chocolates, cocoa liquor and other cocoa based products and the petitioner No. 2 is the director of the petitioner No. 1 Company. The proviso to Rule 32 (e) of the prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (for short 'the Rules') made under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short 'the Act') provides that in case of canned food, the batch number may be given at the bottom of the container or on the lid of the container, but on the body of the container it should be mentioned that the batch number has been given at the bottom or at the lid of the container. On 1-1-1987, the Food Inspector, Ujjain, respondent no. 4 collected some samples of Cadbury Drinking Chocolate manufactured and sold by the petitioner No. 1 Company and a report on the samples was submitted by the Public Analyst to the following effect:-

(2.) MR. S. G. Aney, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that proviso to Rule 32 (e) of the Rules states that in case of canned food, the batch number may be given at the bottom or on the lid of the container. He submitted that this provision in the proviso requiring the batch number to be mentioned at the bottom of the container or lid of the container is reasonable and valid but the further provision in the proviso requiring a statement to be made on the body of the container that 'batch number has been given at the bottom or lid of the container' is absolutely unnecessary and unreasonable and should be struck down by the Court as ultra vires Articles 14,19 (1) (g) and 300-A of the Constitution. In this context, he referred to the Section 23 (1) of the Act, which confers powers on the Central Government to make rules inter alia restricting the labeling of any article of food and the design of such label with a view to preventing a member of the public or the purchaser being deceived or misled as to the character, quality or quantity of that article and submitted that so long as the container contains a batch number either on the lid or at the bottom of the container, a member of the public or the purchaser is not deceived or misled as to the quality of the article. He submitted that the additional provision made in the proviso to Rule 32 (e) of the Rules that it should be mentioned on the body of the container that the batch number is mentioned on the lid or at the bottom of the container is thus ultra vires Section 23 (1) of the act.

(3.) MR. Aney, alternatively, submitted that in the event this Court holds that the provision in the proviso to Rule 32 (e) of the Rules that on the body of the container a mention is to be made that the batch number is mentioned on the lid or at the bottom of the container is not ultra vires Articles 14,19 (1) (g), 300-A of the Constitution or Section 23 of the Act, the Court should hold that where the batch number is in fact mentioned either on the lid or at the bottom of the container but there is no mention on the body of the container that the batch number has been mentioned on the lid or at the bottom of the container, the proviso to Rule 32 (e) is substantially complied with. He cited the decision of the bombay High Court in Carona Ltd. and another Vs. Union of India and others, in which, it was found that the petitioner instead of mentioning the month of manufacture on the box containing the footwear had mentioned the number of the week and the year in which the footwear had been manufactured and the bombay High Court took the view that there was a substantial compliance with the rules made under the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976. He also cited the decision of the Patna High Court in Jagdish Prasad Didwanja and another Vs. State of Bihar and another, in which, the expiry period of article was not indicated exactly in the manner as required by the Rule 32 (1) of the Rules made under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the High Court held in the facts and circumstances that there was more than substantial compliance of the rules and any prosecution of the petitioners therein on grounds of breach of Rule 32 (i) of the Rules would be nothing but an abuse of process of the court.