STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. RAJINDER PAL GROVER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON November 21, 1983, nine bottles of Carbonated aerated water out of fifty such bottles, lying in the shop of the respondent Rajinder Pal Grover, were purchased as a sample by the Food Inspector Dr. Rajesh Kumar. All the bottles bore the trade name 'Tanza'. Did this constitute a case of misbranding as contemplated by Section 2(ix) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), rendering him liable to conviction thereunder ? Herein lies the controversy in revision.

(2.) IN dealing with this matter, there are two aspects of material significance which stand out. In the first instance, there is the clear and categories statement of the Public Analyst that as Carbonated aerated water, the sample examined by him in this case was perfect and second, no less important, that he did not have any sample of 'Tanza' nor any data on the basis of which it could have been possible for him to compare the contents of what had been purchased by the Food Inspector with the bottles of 'Tanza'. In other words, there was on material available with him for comparison which could lead him to conclude that there was any mis -branding in the present case.

(3.) IT is well -settled that what constitutes breach of Section 2(ix) (a) of the Act is a food article which is found to be the imitation or substitute of another article of food. As held by the High Court of Bombay in State of Maharashtra v. Mohammed Iqbal Talib Hussain, 1984(2) P.F.A. Cases 99, mere close resemblance of the package used by the accused to that of some other manufacturer cannot by itself, constitute breach of this provision of law and consequently the mis -branding referred to in sub -clause (a) of Section 2(ix) of the Act is with relation to the contents of the package and to the container. This was the view expressed while dealing with a case very much like the one in hand, inasmuch as the accused had been sent up for trial in respect of Soda water manufactured by him, which was found to be contained in bottles of another Company - Dukes and Rogers. The Public Analyst had certified the contents to be carbonated water of the standard quality, but no soda -water manufactured by Dukes and Rogers had been sent to him for comparison. It was consequently held that there was no case of mis -branding in respect of which the accused could be held liable.