PATIALA DISTILLERS AND MANUFACTURERS LTD Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH THROUGH ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF FOOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing notice of accusation dated 03.09.2011 and complaint No. 46/3 of 2011/04 pending before learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Court No. 3, Ghumarwin, under Sections 16(1)(a)(i), 2(ix)(k), 7(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 ( for short 'Act'), read with Rule 32 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 ( for short 'Rules'). The petitioner has stated that petitioner is a Public Limited Company, registered under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered Office at Village Main,Patiala,Punjab and one of its works at Baddi. S.K.Modi is the Managing Director of the Company. The company is a distillery manufacturing country liquor under a licence granted under the Punjab Excise Act, 1914( for short 'Excise Act'), as applicable to the State of Himachal Pradesh. The manufacturing activities are carried out under direct control and supervision of the State Excise Department in terms of Punjab Distillery Rules, 1932, as applicable to the State of Himachal Pradesh.

(2.) The country liquor manufactured by petitioner is required to be packed in the form and as per norms prescribed and approved by the State Excise Department. The petitioner had been manufacturing and selling country liquor as per statutory guidelines. The petitioner in terms of statutory provisions is required to strictly follow and adhere the norms prescribed for packing and sale of liquor. All labels, tags, holograms and the writing must conform to statutory norms.

(3.) On 24.06.2004, Food Inspector, purchased a sample of country liquor bearing No. SFD-1,21/04 allegedly manufactured by petitioner distillery from L-14A retail vend, Ghumarwin. The sample was sent to laboratory on 29.06.2004 and the public analyst examined the same. The public analyst gave the report dated 03.07.2004 and observed that the batch number, month and year of manufacture or packing, month and year up to which product is best for consumption and symbol to indicate that the product is vegetarian food has not been mentioned in the label. The sample of double distilled spice country liquor ( Patiala Orange) is, therefore, misbranded. The public analyst proceeded to declare the product as misbranded without ascertaining the authenticity/source of its origin without reference to batch number etc. and without taking cognizance of the fact that liquor has never been considered as an item of food to which provisions of the Act would apply.