R K MITTAL Vs. B ROY CHOWDHURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application for quashing of the charge framed along with the proceedings complained of, arises out of Case No. 200d of 1977 pending in the Second Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, 1st Class, calcutta. The charge has been framed against the present petitioner under sec. 16 (1) (a) (ii) of the Prevention of food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) read with rule 32 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the said Rules), by an order dated 19. 9. 80 passed by the said learned magistrate. In the said charge, it appears that violation of Rule 31 instead of Rule 32 has been, alleged. This is an obvious slip or error.

(2.) THE prosecution case, in brief, is that on 20. 7. 77 the complainant/ opposite party No. 1 herein inspected the factory of the petitioner at 16, Malhiabadi Street, calcutta and inspected an article of food, namely, "orange Special" (carbonated water) meant for sale and human consumption. On examination, it appeared to the opposite party No. 1 that the label of the containers did not contain the business address of the manufacturers as required by Rule 32 of the said Rules. The Public Analyst after examination was of the opinion that the sample bottles, sent to him for examination, contained carbonated water (Orange Special ).

(3.) THE relevant portion of Rule 32 of , the said Rules is as follows :-"unless otherwise provided in these rules there shall be specified on every lable. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (b) The name and business address of the manufacturer or importer or vendor or packer. "