Every manufacturer or distributor or dealer has to sell an article of food by giving a warranty in writing

Yugashree | School of Law Sastra University, Thanjavur | 31st March 2020

Raghav Gupta vs. state and another

Facts:

The petitioner was the director of VV beverages, importer of Snapple Juice Drink from United States and supplied to A & M enterprises and which in turn supplied it to Barrista coffee company limited. All the companies are co-accused of the case. Local Health Authority reached the premises of Barissta coffee company at Delhi and took 6 samples of the alleged food misbranded product were actually stored for the purpose of sale. The public analyst reported that the product contains conforming standards however they were misbranded and it is violative of Rule 32(e) of the prevention of Food and Adulteration Rules, 1955.

Petitioners Submission:

• The “Snapple” juice drink sample is not misbranded under Section 32(e) because the barcode / Julian code shown on the sample package reasonably satisfies the criteria of the batch / code / lot number, i.e. the combination that may be used to identify the batch of the sample commodity is a part of the sample.
• The Trial Court also failed to note that the accusation brought against the petitioners herein is without prescribing some specific role towards them. There is also inadequate evidence available to which identification would have been rendered against the petitioners. Only the claim against the petitioners is “because all the above-mentioned directors are in charge and liable for the day-to-day operation of their company.” The accusation alluded to above in the complaint lodged by respondent does not provide a reasonable reason for action to be taken and to proceed the case.
• The complainant failed to provide a clear unbiased view or evidence to the petitioners in charge and liable for working out the day-to-day operation of their companies. The present complaint thus needs to be quashed by the petitioners. In fact, the petitioners had already withdrawn from the Company and were neither in possession nor liable for the day-to-day operations and sector of the alleged company, when the samples were confiscated by the Claimant.
• Further it was submitted that as per section 19(2) of PFA act what is necessary for the accused is to show that he has purchased the article from any manufacturer, distributor, dealer with a written warranty in the prescribed form and it was provided in bill/cash memorandum given by the cash memorandum and it is mentioned under the same act. Pursuant to Section 19(2) of the Act, a convicted individual shall not be found to have committed an offence related to the selling of an adulterated product if he shows that he bought a food item with a written warranty and that he sold it in the same state as he bought it. The purpose of the legislature to incorporate a batch number is essentially to provide a system for tracking the commodity in the manufacturing chain that is adequately given by the bar code.
• Bar code is an internationally recognized marking norm that has been developed to allow the whole procurement that billing mechanism fast and effective and readily readable by Bar Code Scanning Facilities. It is also evident that the object of the law is that, in the event of a breach of any of the clauses of the Act, the producer of the drug can be tracked and that the entire lot of the drug can be tracked until it is shipped or found, whether it has already been shipped.

Respondent’s Submission:

• There is no level of “discharge” envisaged in the Cr. P.C. In fact, the Trial Court is not required to go through the minute specifics of the cases except to render a prima facie opinion on the basis of the evidence submitted by the claimant. The present case is not a proper Triable Complaint situation where the proof would be adequate to prosecute the perpetrator as it is deemed to be un rebutted. The learned Trial Court has however found that the present case is simply a case of misbranding in compliance with the labelling requirements, in breach of Section 2(ix) (k) of the PFA Act.
• In Dwaraka Nath vs. MCD the Hon’ble SC has struck down the said provision beyond rule making power under section 23(1) of the PFA act and the learned trial court has submitted that there were no definitions as to Batch Number or Code Number. Simply providing an arbitrary batch number or code number would not be of any benefit to the public or the purchaser. Therefore, also under Section 25(1) (d) of the Act, Rule 32(e) was found to be beyond the control of the rule-making authorities.

Courts Observation and Decision:

Upon reviewing the evidence and arguments of all sides, the court declared that the decision relied on by the petitioners was not relevant. The court found that no illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by New Delhi, Patiala House Courts and no merit in the present petitions and they are, accordingly, dismissed.