MILK FOOD LIMITED Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHETHER the "melt number" given in an article of food namely Ghee can be accepted as 'distinguishing prefix' within the definition of 'distinguishing prefix' instead of "batch number", "lot number" or "code number" as has been mandated in Rule 32 (e) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (for short, 'the Rules') framed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short, 'the Act') is the basic issue needs to be answered in the instant criminal revision under reference Rule 32 (e) reads as under :

(2.) THE present criminal revision has been placed before this Division Bench in terms of the order dated 27. 6. 2006 and 19. 9. 2007 of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice as the learned Single Judge while entertaining the criminal revision at hand held that if an article of food namely Ghee contained only Melt number, it would not be a distinguishing prefix in lieu of words "batch No" or "batch" or "lot No" or "lot" or any distinguishing prefix come within the purview of Rule 32 (e) of the Rules. Such finding was in apparent conflict with and different from the law laid down in the case of Deepak Sharma Tamuli and Anr. Vs. State of Assam rendered in Criminal Revision No. 134/2000 disposed of on 2. 9. 2004 reported in 2006 Suppl. (1) GLT 699, by a Single Bench of this Court wherein it was held that Melt number given in the sample would come under the definition of 'distinguishing prefix' for which the sample in question i. e. Ghee Milk Food could not be termed to be misbranded under Rule 32 (e) of the Rules. Under such circumstances, the learned Single Judge entertaining the instant revision petition felt that in the interest of justice the matter needed to be referred to a larger Bench for examination and consideration of the matter in its entirety and decision thereof.

(3.) ONE of the samples so collected was sent to Public Analyst, Guwahati who in turn submitted its report on 11. 8. 99 opining that the sample of Ghee was misbranded as per Rule 32 (e) of the Rules. On the basis of the report of the Public Analyst as noticed above and having received sanction for prosecution, the Food Inspector lodged a complaint for prosecution of the petitioners under Section 16 read with Section 7 of the Act. The petitioners have challenged their prosecution in the revision at hand for quashment of the entire criminal proceeding in Case No. 3424c/99 pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guwahati.