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
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.
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.
