ARADHNA SOFT DRINKS COMPANY Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide this order, the above mentioned five petitions would be disposed of as these involve same question of law.

(2.) In the present cases, samples of sweetened carbonated drinks i.e. Pepsi and Mirinda were taken. The case of the prosecution is that the soft drinks had not been labelled in terms of Rule 32 (e) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 ( the Rules for short). Batch No./ Lot No. was not mentioned/ printed on the bottles.

(3.) Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners had not committed any criminal offence. In fact, as per Rules, prevalent at the time of taking of the samples, batch No./ Code No. was not required to be mentioned/ printed on the bottles of soft drinks. In this regard, learned senior counsel has placed reliance on proviso to Rule 32 (f) of the Rules. Learned senior counsel has further submitted that the said Rule was amended vide notification dated 21.8.2006 but the amendment came into force w.e.f.20.8.2007. Samples in the present case were drawn before the amendment in the year 2004/2006.