SHREE OM INDUSTRIES Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defect pointed out by the office is hereby ignored. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that on 14.7.2011, the Food Inspector, Ranchi collected sample of Mustard Oil from Reliance Fresh Shop, Hinoo, Ranchi The said sample was sent to the Public Analyst, Mineral Area Development Authority (MADA), Dhanbad for its analysis. After getting it analyzed, a report was submitted, reporting therein that the sample is 'misbranded' as the level was not in accordance with Rule 32 of the Prevention of the Food Adulteration Rule, 1955.

(2.) In this respect, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner pointed out that since the words "best before six months" were not written in the bold letter, it was taken to be misbranded and on account of that prosecution report was submitted, upon which cognizance was taken under Section 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, which is under challenge.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that it is true that those words which were required to be written in bold letters, were not in bold letter over the packets of the Mustard Oil, but those words are there over the packet and hence, it can be taken to be sufficient compliance of Rule 32 of the said Rules and under this situation, the petitioner never warrants tobe prosecuted.