Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Raghav Gupta, a director of M/s V & V Beverages Pvt. Ltd., was prosecuted under Rule 32(e) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 for alleged misbranding of Snapple Juice Drink. The Food Inspector had purchased sealed samples on 03.05.2011, and the Public Analyst's report dated 30.05.2011 found the sample conforming to standards but misbranded due to lack of lot/batch number declaration. A complaint case (CC No. 4 of 2012) was lodged, and the appellant was issued notice under Section 251 CrPC. The appellant sought discharge under Section 294 CrPC read with Section 192 of the Act, arguing that the product had a barcode containing all required information. The trial court and High Court rejected this plea. The Supreme Court, hearing the appeal, noted that the barcode was undisputedly present on the sample and contained the necessary lot/code/batch identification which could be decoded by a barcode scanner. The Court held that continuing the prosecution would serve no useful purpose and would be an abuse of process, causing unnecessary harassment. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, and the prosecution in CC No. 04 of 2012 pending before ACMM-2, Patiala House Court, New Delhi was quashed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Prevention of Food Adulteration - Misbranding - Rule 32(e) Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 - Barcode as Compliance - The appellant, a director of the importing company, was prosecuted for misbranding because the product lacked lot/batch number declaration. The Supreme Court held that since the barcode on the sample contained all relevant information including batch/code/lot identification which could be decoded by a scanner, continuing prosecution would be an abuse of process. The appeal was allowed and prosecution quashed. (Paras 2-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether prosecution for misbranding under Rule 32(e) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 can continue when the required information (lot/batch number) is available in a barcode on the product.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Prosecution of the appellant in CC No. 04 of 2012 pending before ACMM-2, Patiala House Court, New Delhi is quashed.
Law Points
- Barcode decoding satisfies labeling requirements
- Prosecution abuse of process if technical violation cured
- Rule 32(e) Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 1955
Case Details
Criminal Appeal No. 562 of 2020 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 2942 of 2020)
R.F. Nariman, Navin Sinha, Indira Banerjee
State (NCT of Delhi) and Another
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against prosecution for misbranding under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought quashing of prosecution in CC No. 4 of 2012.
Filing Reason
Appellant was prosecuted for alleged misbranding due to lack of lot/batch number declaration on Snapple Juice Drink.
Previous Decisions
Trial court rejected discharge application; High Court dismissed the plea.
Issues
Whether prosecution for misbranding under Rule 32(e) can continue when barcode contains required information.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that barcode contained all required information including batch/code/lot number, which could be decoded by a scanner.
Respondent did not counter the appellant's submission.
Ratio Decidendi
When the required information under Rule 32(e) (lot/code/batch identification) is available in a barcode on the product and can be decoded by a barcode scanner, continuing prosecution for misbranding is an abuse of process and serves no useful purpose.
Judgment Excerpts
In view of the fact that the relevant information under Rule 32(e) 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, we are of the considered opinion that no useful purpose is going to be served by allowing the present prosecution to continue and 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.
Procedural History
Food Inspector purchased samples on 03.05.2011; Public Analyst report dated 30.05.2011 found misbranding; complaint case no. 4 of 2012 filed; appellant issued notice under Section 251 CrPC; discharge application under Section 294 CrPC read with Section 192 of the Act rejected by trial court; High Court dismissed the plea; Supreme Court granted leave and allowed appeal.
Acts & Sections
- Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954: Section 192
- Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955: Rule 32(e)
- Criminal Procedure Code, 1973: Section 251, Section 294
