Supreme Court

Raghav Gupta vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another

MANU/SC/0671/2020

04.09.2020

Food Adulteration

When product has the necessary barcode on it containing all the relevant information, there is no violation of Regulations

In present matter, the Appellant questions his prosecution under Rule 32(e) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 framed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The Food Inspector purchased sealed samples of Snapple Juice Drink on 3rd May, 2011 for analysis. The report of the Public Analyst dated 30th May, 2011, held that the sample confirmed to standards but was misbranded being in violation of Rule 32(e) of Rules, lacking in necessary declaration of lot/batch numbers. The Appellant was stated to be one of the Directors of V & V Beverages Pvt. Ltd. which imported the drink from foreign manufacturer Schweppes International Rye Brook duly cleared by the Customs department.

A complaint case was lodged by the Food Inspector on basis of the report. Notices were issued to the Appellant under Section 251 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC). The Appellant preferred an application for discharge under Section 294 of the CrPC read with Section 192 of the Act, 1954 on the ground that, the product had the necessary barcode on it and which contained all the relevant information as required by Rule 32(e) of Rules, such as batch no./code no./lot no. The application having been rejected, the Appellant raised the same ground before the High Court which also failed to consider the same.

The barcode was available on the sample is not in dispute. In view of the fact that, the relevant information under Rule 32(e) of Rules with regard to the lot/code/batch identification to facilitate it being traced to the manufacturer are available in the barcode and which can be decoded by a barcode scanner, present Court is of opinion that, no useful purpose is going to be served by allowing the present prosecution to continue. It will be an abuse of the process of law, causing sheer waste of time, causing unnecessary harassment to the Appellant, if the prosecution is allowed to continue. Prosecution of the Appellant is quashed. The appeal is allowed.

Tags : Barcode Proceedings Quashing of

Share :