When packed food article will not be deemed to be misbranded on the ground that complete Address of manufacturing unit is not given?

Equivalent Citation: 2015(3)JCC1715, 2015(2)RCR(Criminal)469,2015 ALLMR(cri)3682 SC

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 2042 of 2009

Decided On: 19.03.2015

Appellants: Nirma Limited
Vs.
Respondent: State of Punjab

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:J.S. Khehar and S.A. Bobde, JJ.

Food Adulteration - Misbranding - Proviso(c) Rule 32(b)(2) Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 and Section 2(ix) Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - Appellant's product packaging did not mention State in manufacturer's address - Whether the Appellant's product met the requirement of complete address under Rule 32(b)(2) Rules, 1955 - whether the Appellant's product was misbranded under Section 2(ix) Act, 1954
The complainant submitted  packets of the Appellant's product to the Public Analyst, who noted in his report that the product was not labeled in accordance with the provision of Rule 32 Rules, 1955 as the complete address of its manufacturer did not include the name of the State. Judicial proceedings were initiated against the Appellant on the aforementioned complaint. The Appellant's petition seeking to quash the same was dismissed by the High Court. Hence, the present appeal.
Held, allowing the appeal
1.The requirement of complete address would be satisfied if the implementing authority, or a consumer, or any other interested person, is in a position to locate the place of manufacture, as well as, the registered office of the manufacturer, on the basis of the address displayed on the label of the packaging. The label on the Appellant's packaging indicated the pin code along with the names of the city and village, with reference to the registered office of the manufacturer and the place of manufacture. The address satisfied the requirement of "complete address", under Rule 32 Rules, 1955 because there would be no difficulty in locating the manufacturing unit, and the registered office of the Appellant, from the address displayed on the label of the packing. It is not possible to conclude that the product in question was misbranded in terms of the provisions of the Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

1. The complainant Dr. Amarjit Lal purchased three sealed packets of "NIRMA Shudh Salt" on payment of ` 24/- (Rupees Twenty Four only), against a valid receipt. The sealed packets were submitted to the Public Analyst, Punjab, Chandigarh for analysis The Public Analyst reported as under:-

"That the product has not been labeled in accordance with the provision of Rule 32 of P.F.A. Rules 1955 as the complete address of its manufacturer (i.e. name of state) has not been given. Hence the sample is misbranded."
(emphasis is ours)

It was therefore sought to be concluded, that the retailer, Nirma Limited, had committed offences Under Sections 7 and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. Consequent upon the initiation of proceedings by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoshiarpur, against Nirma Limited and others, on the afore-mentioned complaint, the Appellant before this Court filed a petition Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, seeking quashing thereof. The High Court dismissed the petition filed by the Appellant by observing as under:-

"Reply has been filed. It is made out that Nirma Shudh Salt Vacuum Evaporated, NIRMA Limited, Nirma House, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad is misbranded. Learned Counsel for the State draws my attention to Annexure P-2 to show that the sample exhibited on record would indicate that the name of the State is not mentioned on the label. Mr. Berry, by referring to reply, would submit that as per the requirement of Rule 32 of PFA Rules, 1955, complete address of the manufacturer with name of the State has not been mentioned. Since the name of the State has not been mentioned, the Public Analyst, Punjab, vide his analysis report has found this salt to be mis-branded. No case for gushing the complaint and the summoning order is made out. The Petitioners, however, would be at liberty to take all these defences before the trial Court."
(emphasis is ours)

The aforesaid order dated 28.5.2007, is subject matter of challenge at the hands of the Appellant.

2. A perusal of the impugned order reveals, that the product sold by the Appellant was misbranded. It was the vehement contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellant, that the description of the name and address on the product, does not justify the conclusion recorded by the High Court. It was the submission of the learned Counsel for the Appellant, that the mandate of the statutory provisions under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 does not require any such description. Before we delve into the details of the statutory provisions, it is pertinent to record the details in respect of the manufacturer's address and the address of the manufacturing unit, depicted on the packets sent for analysis.

"Mfd. By
NIRMA LIMITED
Survey No. 478-P, Vill. Kalatalav,
Dist. Bhavnagar-364313
Regd. Off.
NIRMA LIMITED
"Nirma House" Ashram Road,
Ahmedabad-380009

3. Insofar as the issue in hand is concerned, reference may be made to Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, which is being reproduced hereunder:

7. Prohibitions of manufacture, sale, etc., of certain articles of food - No person shall himself or by any person on his behalf manufacture for sale, or store, sell or distribute-

(i) any adulterated food;
(ii) any misbranded food;
(iii) any article of food for the sale of which a licence is prescribed, except in accordance with the conditions of the licence;
(iv) any article of food the same of which is for the time being prohibited by the Food (Health) Authority in the interest of public health;
(v) any article of food in contravention of any other provision of this Act or of any rule made thereunder;
(vi) any adulterant.

Explanation. - For the purposes of this section, a person shall be deemed to store any adulterated food or misbranded food or any article of food referred to in Clause (iii) or Clause (iv) or Clause (v) if he stores such food for the manufacture therefrom of any article of food for same.
(emphasis is ours)
The above provision prohibits, the sale of a food product, which is misbranded. The terms 'misbranded' is defined in Section 2(ix) of the Prevention of the Food Adulteration Act, 1954 as under:-

ix) "misbranded" - an article of food shall be deemed to be misbranded-

(a) if it is an imitation of, or is a substitute for, or resembles in a manner likely to deceive, another article of food under the name of which it is sold, and is not plainly and conspicuously labeled so as to indicate its true character;
(b) if it is falsely stated to be the product of any place or country;
(c) if it is sold by a name which belongs to another article of food;
(d) if it is so coloured, flavoured or coated, powdered or polished that the fact that the article is damaged is concealed or if the article is made to appear better or of greater value than it really is;
(e) if false claims are made for it upon the label or otherwise;
(f) if, when sold in packages which have been sealed or prepared by or at the instance of the manufacturer or producer and which bear his name and address, the contents of each package are not conspicuously and correctly stated on the outside thereof within the limits of variability prescribed under this Act;
(g) if the package containing it, or the label on the package bears any statement, design or device, regarding the ingredients or the substances contained therein, which is false or misleading in any material particular; or if the package is otherwise deceptive with respect to its contents;
(h) if the package containing it or the label on the package bears the name of a fictitious individual or company as the manufacturer or producer of the article;
(i) if it purports to be, or is represented as being, for special dietary uses, unless its label bears such information as may be prescribed concerning its vitamin, mineral, or other dietary properties in order sufficiently to inform its purchaser as to its value for such uses;
(j) if it contains any artificial flavouring, artificial colouring or chemical preservative, without a declaratory label stating that fact, or in contravention of the requirements of this Act or rules made thereunder;
(k) if it is not labeled in accordance with the requirements of this Act or rules made thereunder;
(emphasis is ours)

A perusal of Sub-clause (k) of Section 2(ix) leaves no room for any doubt, that a product which is subject to sale, must be labeled in accordance with the requirements of the provisions of the Prevention of the Food Adulteration Act, 1954, or the rules made thereunder. Insofar as the deficiency in the present case is concerned, the contention is (as is apparent from the complaint filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoshiarpur) based on proviso(c) Under Rule 32(b)(2) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. The relevant extract of proviso(c) aforementioned, is being reproduced hereunder:

32. Every prepackaged food to carry a label
(a) General -

xxxx xxxx

(b) Labelling of Prepackaged Foods-

(1) The name of the Food-The name of the food shall include trade name or description of food contained in the package.
(2) List of ingredients - Except for single ingredient foods, a list of ingredients shall be declared on the label in the following manner:

xxxx xxxx
Provided also that for all vegetarian food,-
(a) XXXX XXXX
(b) XXXX XXXX
(c)(i) the name and complete address of the manufacturer and the manufacturing unit, if these are located at different places and in case the manufacturer is not the packer or bottler, the name and complete address of the packing or bottling unit as the case may be;
(ii) where an article of food is manufactured or packed or bottled by a person or a company under the written authority of some other manufacturer or company, under his or its brand name, the label shall carry the name and complete address of the manufacturing or packing or bottling unit as the case may be, and also the name and complete address of the manufacturer or the company, for and whose behalf it is manufactured or packed or bottled;
(iii) where an article of food is imported into India, the package of food shall also carry the name and complete address of the importer in India;
Provided that where any food article manufactured outside India is packed or bottled in India, the package containing the such food article shall also bear on the label, the name of the country of origin of the food article and the name and complete address of the importer and the premises of the packing or bottling in India]
(d) to (i) XXXX XXXX

4. Clause (i) of proviso(c) Under Rule 32(b)(2), is therefore, the provision under which the action has been initiated against the Appellant. The same requires that the packaging of all vegetarian foods, should record the "name and complete address" of the manufacturer and the manufacturing unit. Obviously, the address of the manufacturing unit, refers to the place where the product is manufactured. And the address of the manufacturer, refers to the registered office of the manufacturer. The contention of the authorities in the complaint, as well as, the impugned order passed by the High Court reveals, that the name of the "State" in which the manufacturer is carrying out its manufacturing activity, and the name of the "State" in which the manufacturer has its registered office, having not been disclosed on the label of the packaging, the same must be deemed to be misbranded.

5. Before dealing with proviso(c) referred to hereinabove, it is necessary to keep in mind, that the consequences of non-compliance of proviso(c) are penal. In the above view of the matter, it is imperative to construe the provisions strictly. Proviso (c) requires the depiction of the "name and complete address" of the manufacturer, and the manufacturing unit. The extract of the address on the packages which were sought to be confiscated, reveals, that the name of the village and the district where the product was being manufactured, was clearly mentioned. In so far as registered office of the manufacturer is concerned, the road on which the same is located, as well as, the city in which it is located, were mentioned. Along with above depiction, in both cases (address of manufacturer and manufacturing unit), even the pin codes are mentioned (with reference to the manufacturer's address-380009; and with reference to the manufacturing unit's address-364313).

6. The question that arises for our consideration is, whether the depiction of the addresses would satisfy the requirement "complete address" contained in proviso(c), referred to and relied upon to initiate action against the Appellant. In our considered view, the requirement of complete address would be satisfied if the implementing authority, or a consumer, or for that matter any other interested person, is in a position to locate the place of manufacture, as well as, the registered office of the manufacturer, on the basis of the address displayed on the label of the packaging. In other words, the address would be deemed to be complete, if there would be no ambiguity in locating the place of manufacture, or the registered office of the manufacturer. It would be complete if the address depicted is not referable to more than one locations. Finding fault, for not mentioning the name of the State, in the instant case, would be permissible if the address indicated is referable to more than one States.

7. It is not possible for us to conclude, that the address indicated on the products seized from the Appellant, is referable to more than one "States". The simple reason therefore is, that the label on the packaging indicates the pin code along with the names of the city (Ahmedabad - 380009) and Village (Kalatalav-364313) with reference to the registered office of the manufacturer and the place of manufacture respectively. The above address, is in our view, satisfies the requirement of "complete address", because there would be no difficulty in locating the manufacturing unit, and the registered office of the Appellant, from the address displayed on the label of the packing. Since the pin code is also mentioned, the address on the packaging would not lead to more than one locations. It is, therefore, not possible for us to accept, that the Appellant had not depicted the complete address as required by proviso(c), relied upon by the authorities. It is accordingly not possible for us to conclude, that the product in question was misbranded, in terms of the provisions of the Food Adulteration Act, 1954. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, the instant appeal is allowed, and the proceedings initiated against the Appellant, are quashed. The necessity for us to adjudicate upon the controversy arose merely on account of the fact, that the Appellant was remiss in facilitating the High Court in the adjudication of the matter. A perusal of the impugned order dated 28.5.2007 reveals, that no one had entered appearance on behalf of the Appellant, despite the matter having been called out for the second time. It is, therefore, that the High Court was constrained to dispose of the controversy, in terms of the stance adopted by the State Government, in its counter affidavit. Since the proceedings were initiated by the Appellant, Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, a review petition was not competent, and as such, the Appellant approached this Court for the determination of the controversy. The Appellant is responsible for his aforesaid dereliction, which has resulted in the litigation unnecessarily coming to this Court, for adjudication. We, therefore, consider it just and appropriate to impose costs on the Appellant. The Appellant is, accordingly, directed to pay an amount of ` 1 lakh (Rupees one lakh only) as costs. The costs shall be deposited with the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee, within four weeks from today. In case of non-compliance in deposit of costs, the matter will be re-listed for motion hearing, for the recovery of the same.

Print Page