Statement printed on label that "Endorsed by heart care foundation of India whether amounts to recommendation by medical profession for medical purpose?

 Regarding violation of Rule 39 of PFA Rules is concerned, recommendation found in the label that "Pillsburry Chakki Fresh Atta Whole Wheat Atta is Good for Your Family's Heart" is not in respect of contents of the sample, but is in respect of Whole Wheat Atta. Further, the statement printed in the label that "Endorsed by Heart Care Foundation of India" is general in nature and Heart Care foundation of India is a Non Governmental Organisation founded in 1986, which was created for the objective of creating awareness about all aspects of health in all walks of life and the statement printed in the label cannot be construed as recommendation by the medical profession or prescribed or approved by medical practitioners for medical purpose. The nature of the duties performed by the Heart Care Foundation of India is entirely different from the Medical professional or Medical practitioners, as such, neither Rule 37 nor Rule 39 is controverted by the words and by printing the same on the label in question.

Madras High Court

Bhushan Prasad vs Food Inspector on 9 September, 2014

      Citation;2015(2) crimes madras 77

This revision challenges the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Sathyamangalam, in C.M.P.No.1861 of 2007, on 10.12.2007. Petitioner is the third accused and the case is prosecuted for offences under Sections 16(1)(a)(i), & (ii) read with Sec.2(ix)(k) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and Rules 37 and 39 of PFA Rules, 1955.

2. In sum and substance, the allegation levelled against the petitioner is that this petitioner/third accused, producing a wheat product by name 'New Pillsbury Chakki Fresh Atta', had in the label of packages made a representation that 'Whole Wheat Atta is Good for your Family's Heart'. In dismissing the petition for discharge, the Court below had been of the view that at the stage of filing charges it was not required to conduct any elaborate enquiry or apprise the probative value of evidence and that the accused would have sufficient opportunity to contradict the evidence as also the Public Analyist's opinion and the materials before it at the stage of trial.

3. This Court had occasion to consider a question similar to one raised by the petitioner, in Crl.O.P.No.2098 of 2011 etc., batch and the order of this Court therein observes thus:

"6. Regarding violation of Rule 39 of PFA Rules is concerned, recommendation found in the label that "Pillsburry Chakki Fresh Atta Whole Wheat Atta is Good for Your Family's Heart" is not in respect of contents of the sample, but is in respect of Whole Wheat Atta. Further, the statement printed in the label that "Endorsed by Heart Care Foundation of India" is general in nature and Heart Care foundation of India is a Non Governmental Organisation founded in 1986, which was created for the objective of creating awareness about all aspects of health in all walks of life and the statement printed in the label cannot be construed as recommendation by the medical profession or prescribed or approved by medical practitioners for medical purpose. The nature of the duties performed by the Heart Care Foundation of India is entirely different from the Medical professional or Medical practitioners, as such, neither Rule 37 nor Rule 39 is controverted by the words and by printing the same on the label in question.

7.As far as the complaint filed by the respondent is concerned, the same is nothing but reproduction of the opinion of the Public Analyst. Out High Court, in similar circumstances, in the decision reported in Indian Kanoon-http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1966248 (K.Ganesan and Other v. The Food Inspector, Periyakulam Municipality, Theni District) cited on the side of the petitioners, arrived at the conclusion that the impugned complaint did not make out any prima facie case that the sample was misbranded, as such, the prosecution lodged against the petitioners therein would amount to a clear case of abuse of process of court and accordingly quashed the proceedings.

8. Thus, applying the same view of our High Court to the present case this court is of the view that the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners in all the five cases are liable to be quashed and are accordingly quashed, not only against the petitioners herein, but also other accused, who are not party to the criminal proceedings."

4.Being in agreement with the view above expressed and of the view that the same applies on all fours in the present case, the present revision petition shall stand allowed. Considering that the other accused in the case would stand on similar footing, the entire case in C.C.No.181 of 2006, on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Sathyamangalam, shall stand quashed. This criminal revision case is allowed. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Print Page