OMPRAKASH NATANI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 8th September, 2014 imposing penalty of Rs.51,000/- for violation of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (in short "the Act of 2006") and the Regulations made thereunder.

(2.) Learned counsel submits that after taking sample of tea, it was sent for analysis in the laboratory. A report was then submitted where other than misbranding, nothing adverse was found. The misbranding was found for using words "best before within 12 months". As per Rules and Regulations, it should have been "best before 12 months". The word "within" was found to be objectionable though substance is not changed and otherwise compliance of the rules exist. The penalty has been imposed ignoring the judgments of Apex Court in the case of Ranganatha Reddiar v. The State of Kerala, 1969 2 SCC 457 and Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Calcutta v. Gold Mohore Investment Company Ltd., 1969 2 SCC 460. He has placed further reliance on the judgments of Madras High Court in the case of A. Rajasingh & Ors. v. Food Inspector, 2008 1 FAC 172, T. Prabhu & Ors. v. The Madras State, 2007 1 FAC 314, P. Robert Immanuel & Anr. v. State Represented by the Food Inspector, 2009 2 FAC 199 and Delhi High Court in the case of State v. Mahendra Kumar & Ors., 2008 1 FAC 177 and of Kerala High Court in the case of A.V. Sadanandan v. The Food inspector, Alappuzha Municipality,20071 FAC 317 and V.V. Kunhikannan v. State-represented by the Public Prosecutor,2009 2 FAC 203, Jharkhand High Court in the case of Oscar Josheph & 1 Anr. v. The State of Jharkhand & Anr.,2012 2 FAC 74, of Bombay High Court in the case of Shri Madhavan Ganesan & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.,2012 2 FAC 76, of Patna High Court in the case of M.D., Anand Aqua, M/s S.B. Industries, Patna v. The State of Bihar & Anr., 2011 1 FAC 265 and Gujarat High Court in the case of Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v. State of Gujarat & Anr.,2011 1 FAC 267. Therein, similar issue was considered and decided. Looking to the facts given above, impugned order deserves to be quashed. The petitioner has not violated Section 2 (2)(ii) of the Act of 2006, rather compliance of the aforesaid was made. With insertion of word "within" did not change the substance, rather required information on the packet was given as per Act and the Regulations made thereunder. The imposition of penalty of Rs.51,000/- deserves to be set aside.

(3.) Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition.