GOODRICKE GROUP LIMITED Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed by one of the accused in complaints Annexures P -1 to P -7, filed by the respondents. The complaints are filed under the provisions of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for the offence under Section 7 thereof. The contention of the petitioner is that the employees of respondent No.2 had taken sample of tea packets from the various retailers of the petitioner's company at different places in Punjab and thereafter on receipt of the report of Public Analyst, filed complaints on the ground that on the product, Batch/Lot/Code No./Month of packing was not conspicuously marked.

(2.) IT is contended by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the Central Government has been empowered under Section 23 of the Act to make rules and in exercise of that powers, the Central Government had made rules called the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). Rule 32 (c) is relevant for the purpose and the same is reproduced below :

(3.) IT is contended by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the above Rule was challenged as being ultra -vires and the Supreme Court in AIR 1971 S.C. 1844 held that requirement of Rule 32(e) to give batch No.1 ot No./Code No. be stated at labels of containers without specifying the date of packing or manufacture of the article or the date before which the article is to be used is ultra -vires of the rule -making power of the Central Government and is invalid. It is contended that the Apex Court held that the above said rule is beyond the rule -making power as envisaged under Section 23 of the Act.