Delhi High Court
Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. vs Union Of India on 28 February, 2012
Author: A.K.Sikri
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ WP (C) No.6791/2008 & WP(Crl.) No.244/2010
Date of Hearing: 09.12.2011
% Date of Decision: 28.02.2012
1) WP(C) No.6791/2008
PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD. .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Maninder Singh,
Senior Advocate with Mr. Dheeraj
Nair and Mr. Divyam Agarwal
Versus
UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent
Through Mr.Ravinder Agarwal
2) WP (Crl.) No.244/2010
B.C. SHARMA & ANOTHER .....Petitioner
Through: Sudhir Chandra,
Senior Advocate with
Mr. Rajesh Batra
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondent
Through Mr. B.V. Niren for
respondent No.1
Mr. M.Y. Khan for respondent
No.4
CORAM :-
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
A.K. SIKRI, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
1. In both these writ petitions challenge laid is to the same provision,
namely, definition of „Food‟ contained in Section 2 (v) of the Prevention
of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as „the PFA
Act‟). This Section reads as under:-
"(v) "food" means any article used as food or drink
for human consumption other than drugs
and water and includes-
(a) any article which ordinarily enters into, or is used in the
composition or preparation of, human food,
(b) any flavouring matter or condiments, and
(c) any other article which the Central Government may,
having regard to its use, nature, substance or quality,
declare, by notification in the Official Gazette, as food
for the purpose of this Act;"
2. As is clear from the above, in clause (a) and (b) specific nature of
articles which can be treated as „Food‟ are mentioned. At the same time,
clause (c) empowers the Central Government to issue notification in the
Official Gazette declaring any other article as „Food‟ for the purposes of
this Act, having regard to its use, nature, substance or quality. Further,
though the definition is inclusive in nature, it specifically excludes drugs
and water. Thus, water is not treated as food by the legislature in the
aforesaid definition. Vide notification dated 29.9.2000 issued under
Section 2(v)(c), the Central Government has included „packaged
drinking water‟ within the definition of „Food‟. According to the
petitioners, though drinking water even if packaged form remains water
only and therefore, the Central Government could not include item of
water as food in exercise of its power under clause (c) of sub-section
2(v), since water is specifically excluded by the legislature. According
to the respondents, however, the expression water contained in Section
2(v) of the PFA Act covers within its sweep only plain water or ordinary
water and as packaged drinking water is not ordinary water per se, it can
be treated as a food item. This in sum and substance is the bone of
contention.
3. To take of the legislative history behind the aforesaid provision
leading to issuance of notification, it may be mentioned that sub-section
(c) of Section 2(v) was inserted vide an amendment carried out by Act
34 of 1976 whereby the Central Government was conferred the power to
declare, by Notification in the Official Gazette, any other article as
„Food‟ which it may consider including within the definition of „Food.‟
Section 2(v) as it stood prior to and after the amendment, specifically
excluded „drugs and water‟. The legislature in its own wisdom, while
conferring the power on the Central Government to include other articles
within the definition of „Food‟ retained the exclusion of „drugs and
water‟. The Central Government issued Notification No.GSR 760(E)
dated 29.9.2000 and Notification No.GSR 202(E) dated 21.3.2001
wherein initially sub-rule 28 of Rule 49 of the Prevention of Food
Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as „the PFA Rules‟)
was inserted restricting manufacture, sale or exhibition for sale of
packaged drinking water except under the Bureau of Indian Standard
Certification mark. Sub-rule 28 to Rule 49 is extracted herein below for
ease of reference:-
"49. Conditions for sale (1) ...........
(28) No person shall manufacture, sell or exhibit for
sale packaged drinking water except under the Bureau
of Indian Standards Certification Mark."
4. Simultaneously, the Central Government also inserted Entry A-33
to Appendix B of the Rules specifying the standards for packaged
drinking water. Packaged drinking water was defined by the respondent
under the impugned standards as under:-
"Packaged Drinking Water‟ means water derived from
any source of potable water or sea water or
underground water or surface water which may be
subjected to the treatments, namely, decantation,
filtration, combination of filtration, aerations, filtration
with membrane filter, depth filter, cartridge filter,
activated carbon filter, demineralization,
remineralization, reverse osmosis and packed. It may
be disinfected to a level that will not lead to harmful
contamination in the drinking water. It may be
disinfected by means of chemical agents and/or
physical method to reduce the number of micro-
organism to a level and does not compromise food
safety or suitability.
Provided that sea water, before being subjected to the
above treatments, would be subjected to desalination
and related processes....."
5. The Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) in purported exercise of its
power and in pursuance of the impugned notifications framed IS 14543 :
2004 Specifications for packaged drinking water (other than packaged
mineral water) prescribing, inter alia, labeling prohibitions which were
identical in material particulars to the labeling prohibitions contained in
the impugned standards. BIS further directed the petitioner to modify its
label ostensibly on the ground that the label used by the petitioner misled
the public about the nature, origin, composition and properties of its
packaged drinking water and was thus, violative of clause 7.2 of IS
14543 : 2004.
6. The petitioner in WP(C) No.6791/2008 filed Writ Petition bearing
No.20909/2005 on 28.10.2005 challenging the directions issued by BIS
to remove various phrases and the Mountain Device used by the
petitioner on its labels of packaged drinking water bottles. The learned
Single Judge vide his final judgment and order passed in WP(C)
No.20909 of 2005 quashed the directions issued by BIS and allowed the
said writ petition filed by the petitioner. The BIS filed Letters Patent
Appeal being No. LPA No.1649 of 2006 impugning order dated
8.5.2006 passed in the aforesaid writ petition. The said LPA is pending
in this Court.
7. The petitioner-PEPSICO in the aforesaid backdrop filed the
present writ petition impugning the circulars including packaged
drinking water within the definition of food as ultra vires,
unconstitutional and illegal. Likewise, the petitioner in WP(Crl.)
No.244/2010 has prayed for similar reliefs. In respect of this petitioner,
it may be added that the Food Inspector has even filed Criminal
Complaint No.14/2003 titled Food Inspector v. Prem Pal and others
under Section 16 of the PFA Act for alleged violation of Rule 49(28) of
the PFA Rules, which is pending before the court of Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate II, New Delhi. Additional prayer is made for
quashing of the said complaint. Mr. Maninder Singh and Mr. Sudhir
Chandra, learned Senior Advocates, argued for the two petitioners
respectively. It was their submission that water for human consumption
has been excluded from the definition of „Food‟ by the Legislature itself
and in view thereof the Central Government cannot include, by passing
notification, water as food item for the purposes of this Act. It was
argued that the expression "any other article" appearing in clause (c) has
to be an article other than water and therefore, these notifications dated
29.9.2000 and 21.3.2001 were violative of Section 2(v) of the PFA Act.
Otherwise, it amounts to bringing back within the provisions of the Act
an item of food by subordinate legislation, which is specifically excluded
by the Parliament in the enactment. Reliance in this behalf is placed on
the judgment in Kunj Behari Lal Butail & Ors. v. State of H.P. & Ors.,
(2000) 3 SCC 40 and Krishna Mohan (P) Ltd. v. Municipal
Corporation of Delhi & Ors., (2003) 7 SCC 151.
8. Mr. Ravinder Agarwal and Mr. Niren, learned counsel appearing
for the Union of India in the two writ petitions, per contra, argued that it
is only plain or ordinary water, which is excluded from the purview of
definition of „Food‟ in Section 2(v) of the Act. Once water is treated and
then packed it does not remain plain water per se and assumes different
character which can be treated as „Food‟ item. For this purpose
definition of packaged drinking water inserted at Item A.33 in Appendix
was highlighted as this definition clearly mentions that such potable
water which is subjected to treatment, namely, decantation, filteration,
combination of filteration, aerations, filteration with membrane filter,
depth filter, cartridge filter, activated carbon filteration,
demineralization, remineralisation reverse osmosis and packed. Such a
water can be disinfected also to a level which does not lead to harmful
contamination in the drinking water and it may be disinfected by means
of chemical agents and/or physical method of the number of micro-
organism to a level that does not compromise food safety or suitability.
Learned counsel also pointed out that identical issue had already been
decided by Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Krishna Foods
and Acqua Minerals v. Government of India, Ministry of Health and
Family Welfare, Dept. of Health and Anr., 2004(2) FAC 334. In that
case the Court had held that a plain reading of Section 2(v)(c) makes it
abundantly clear that the Parliament had itself authorized the Central
Government to include and declare by notification in Official Gazette
any article which is not otherwise defined in the Act as „food‟ for the
purpose of PFA Act. It was submitted that packaged drinking water is
not an ordinary water as it is subjected to various treatments and the end
product is produced/manufactured. It was also highlighted that the
consumer is charged for such processing of water besides the cost of
water bottling, packaging etc. Therefore, laying of standards for
packaged drinking water/mineral water was necessary to safeguard the
larger interest of the consumer and their health. It was argued that if
packaged drinking water cannot be included in the definition of water
then even carbonated water (soft drinks) will have to be excluded from
the definition of water as this carbonated water is nothing but water with
carbon dioxide gas. Highlighting the importance of such an inclusion it
was argued that the Constitution of India places onus upon the Central
Government to ensure health of its citizen and keeping in view this
liability, the matter was taken up for consideration by the Central
Committee for Food Standard (CCFS), a Statutory Committee
constituted under Section 3 of the PFA Act. The Committee examined
the issue in depth and made specific recommendations for review of the
quality standards of „mineral water‟ and „packaged drinking water‟ laid
down under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. It is
argued that the respondent in exercise of its power under Section 23 of
the PFA Act gave its intent to lay down specifications for „packaged
drinking water‟ by issuing draft rules vide GSR No.85(E) dated 3.2.2000
inviting comments from the public, trade and industry. Further, a press
note was also issued on 17.10.2000 so that the industries may themselves
obtain the BIS certification. It was further submitted that even
Karnataka High Court in Cauvery Mineral Waters Pvt. Limited v.
Bureau of Indian Standards and Anr., 2002 Crl. LJ 4779 has taken the
same view.
9. We have considered the respective submissions of counsel for
both the parties.
10. As noted above, both Karnataka High Court and Andhra Pradesh
High Court have repelled similar contentions advanced by the petitioners
herein holding that packaged drinking water can be included as item of
„Food‟ by way of notification under clause (c) of Section 2(v) of the
PFA Act. Challenge before the Andhra Pradesh High Court was to the
same notification and the amended Rules which prohibit manufacture,
sale or exhibit for sale „packaged drinking water‟ except under the BIS
certification mark. This challenge was on the basis of identical
contention, namely, when water was specifically excluded from the
definition of „Food‟ unless necessary amendment is made under clause
(c) of Section 2(v) itself, rule making authority could not include water
as an item of food. Though the Notification issued under clause (c) of
Section 2(v) of the Act was not challenged, the Court still made
categorical observations that such a notification, in any case, could not
be challenged on any ground. Para 17 of the judgment to this effect
reads as under:-
"17. The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare
(Department of Health) vide notification dated 12-3-
2001 in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-
clause (c) of Clause (v) of Section 2 of the PFA Act,
having regard to its use, nature, substance and quality,
declared 'packaged drinking water' as 'food' for the
purposes of the said Act. The said notification so
issued by the Central Government is not challenged,
and, in our considered opinion, cannot be challenged
on whatever grounds. The same has obviously been
issued by the Central Government in public interest
and to ensure 'packaged drinking water' to be in
conformity with the standards fixed by the Food and
Agricultural Organisation and World Health
Organisation of the United Nations."
11. Holding that packaged drinking water did not remain ordinary
water any longer, the Court made following pertinent observations:-
"26. It is thus clear that water, which is excluded from
the definition of 'food' in Section 2(v) of the PFA Act,
is ordinary water, which is clearly distinguishable
from all kinds of 'mineral water' or 'natural water' and
'packaged drinking water' which may derive from any
source of potable water subjected to treatments etc.
Therefore, the notification issued by the Central
Government dated 29-3-2001 declaring 'packaged
drinking water' as 'food' for the purposes of provisions
of the PFA Act, in no manner amounts to amending
the provisions of the PFA Act as contended by the
learned Counsel for the petitioners. The article of
'packaged drinking water' is added as an additional
item as 'food' for the purposes of the PFA Act in view
of its nature and substance etc. The 'packaged drinking
water' as defined hereinabove is comprehensive in its
term, which takes into account the water that, is being
manufactured and processed by the petitioners'
companies. The impugned amendments, in our
considered opinion, cannot be characterised as
arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable and unjust as
complained by the petitioners."
12. The Court also took note of the provisions of Bureau of Standards
Act, 1986, which provides for establishment of a Bureau for the
harmonious development of the activities of standardization, marking,
quality certification of goods and for matters connected therewith or
incidental thereto. Taking note of certain provisions of the Act and the
Rules framed the Court held that the Indian Standards which are
otherwise voluntary and available to public can be made as a binding
requirement by any Legislation or by specific orders of the Government
making it a mandatory requirement and sub-Rules 28 and 29 of Rule 49
of the PFA Rules had made them mandatory. We would like to
reproduce paras 43 and 44 of the judgment as well, in this behalf, which
read as under:-
"43. Sub-rules (28) and (29) of Rule 49 of the PFA
Rules which are couched in mandatory form prohibit
manufacture, sale or exhibition for sale of 'packaged
drinking water' and 'mineral water' except under the
Bureau of Indian Standard certification mark. Thus,
there is a clear legal requirement making the Bureau of
Indian Standard certification mark compulsory for
manufacture, sale or exhibition for sale of 'packaged
drinking water' and 'mineral water'. Even an order of
the Central Government could have been enough for
making the Indian Standard as a binding requirement.
44. The expression "in a Legislation" employed in
Sub-rule (7)(b) of Rule 7 of the BIS Rules obviously
means "any Legislation"; it is not confined to the
provisions of the BIS Act and the Rules made
thereunder. It only means that it may be made
compulsory by any Legislation validity enacted or
Rules made under such Legislation. Sub-rules (28) and
(29) of Rule 49 of PFA Rules are validly made which
prohibit manufacture, sale or exhibition for sale of
'packaged drinking water' without Bureau of Indian
Standards certification mark. Rules make obtaining of
the certification mark as mandatory requirement."
13. In Cauvery Mineral Waters (P) Ltd. (supra) taking same view
the Court held that "all water available on earth is not excluded from the
definition of the word „food‟. The rationale given by the High Court was
that the packaged water is specially meant for human consumption and it
is also used in composition and preparation of food. Therefore,
whatever article is used as food or drink for human consumption is a
„food‟ as defined under the Act. The Court also highlighted the object of
regulating the sale of packaged drinking water, namely, to prevent sale
of contaminated/polluted water, which is primarily responsible for
damaging the health of the human being. Therefore, any potable water,
which is meant to be used for human consumption, must conform to the
standard on the basis of scientific data and if that is so, it was in the
interest of general public that the quality of water sold in packaged bottle
is regulated. Following discussion from the said judgment is also worth
noting:-
"6. ...... From the reading of the definition of the
word 'food' under the Act no doubt, drugs and water
are excluded. But, at the same time, any article used as
food or drink for human consumption is a food.
Further, any article which ordinarily enters into or
used in composition or preparation of human food is
also a food. In 'The World Book Encyclopedia' it is
stated that water is the most common substance on
earth. It covers more than 70% of the earth's surface. It
fills the oceans, rivers and lakes, and is in the ground
and in the air we breathe. Water is everywhere. Out of
total available 'water' on earth, only about 3% is fresh.
About 3/4th of the fresh water is frozen in glaciers and
icecaps. Glaciers and icecaps contain as much water as
flows in all the earth's rivers in about 1,000 years.
From this it is clear that, water pollution is one of our
most serious environmental problems. Polluted water
may look clean or dirty, but it contains germs,
chemicals or other materials that can cause
inconvenience, illness or death. Impurities must be
removed before such water can be used safely for
drinking, cooking, washing or laundering. Water
pollution is a serious problem in these days. Therefore,
keeping in view the present situation, it is just and
necessary to understand the word 'food' as defined
under the Act 1954.
7. The object of bringing the enactment i.e., the
Act 1954 is to make provision for prevention of
adulteration of food. As seen from the state ment of
objection on behalf of the Union of India there were
lot of complaints regarding the purity of water sold in
the market which is meant for human consumption. As
per the definition 'food' means any article used as food
or drink for human consumption and any article which
ordinarily enters into, or is used in the composition or
preparation of, human food is also a 'food'. Keeping
this in view can it be said that all water that is
available on earth is excluded from the definition of
the word 'food'? All water available on earth cannot be
used for human consumption or it can't be used for
preparation of human food. Whenever there is a doubt
as to the meaning of a provision, it is just and
necessary to look into the preamble in order to
ascertain the intention of the Legislature. From the
well-established rules of legislation of the statute, the
preamble and title may legitimately be consulted to
solve any ambiguity, or to fix the meaning of the word
which may have more than one or to keep the effect of
the Act within the real scope whenever the enacting
part is in any of these respects open to doubt. If literal
construction would defeat the obvious intention of the
Legislature and produce a wholly unreasonable result,
the Court must "do some violence to the words" and
so achieve that obvious intention and produce a
rational construction as held by the Court in the case
of Ajit Investment Company Private Limited,
Jamnagar, Gujarat and Anr. v. K.G. Malvadkar and
Ors., AIR 1973 Bom. 285 Lord Denning in his book
'The Discipline of law' has stated that "whenever there
is a choice, choose the meaning which accords with
reasons and justice". It is further stated in the said
book that whenever strict interpretation of statute
gives rise to absurd and unjust situation, the Judges
can and should use their good sense to remedy it - by
reading words in, if necessary - so as to do what
Parliament would have done, had they had the
situation in mind. Keeping this in view the definition
of the word 'food' defined under the Act is to be
understood.
The Supreme Court in the case of Girdhari Lal and
Sons v. Balbir Nath Mathur and Ors.,
[1986]1SCR383 has held as follows.--
"Whenever a statute comes up for
consideration, it must be remembered that it
is not within human powers to foresee the
manifold sets of facts which may arise, and,
even if it were, it is not possible to provide
for them in terms free from all ambiguity. . A
Judge cannot simply fold his hands and
blame the draftsman. He must set to work on
the constructive task of rinding the intention
of Parliament, and he must do this not only
from the language of the statute, but also
from a construction of the social conditions
which gave rise to it and of the mischief
which it was passed to remedy and then he
must supplement the written word, so as to
give force and life to the intention of the
Legislature. Put into homely metaphor, it is
this: A Judge should ask himself the question
how, if the makers of the Act had themselves
come across this ruck in the contexture of it
they would have straightened it out? He must
then do what they would have done. A Judge
should not alter the material of which the Act
is woven, but he can and should iron out the
creases".
14. We are entirely in agreement with the aforesaid approach taken by
the two High Courts in the aforesaid judgments. The reasons given
therein provide answer of all the arguments raised by the counsel for the
petitioners and therefore, we need not repeat the same. Apart from what
is stated by the respondents about the processing that is required to be
undertaken before making it packaged drinking water, which
substantiates their case, we would like to refer to „Code of Hygienic
Practice for Bottled/Packaged Drinking Waters (Other Than Natural
Mineral Water) CAC/RCP 48-2001. Introduction to this Code points out
that international trade in bottled water has increased in recent years,
both in quantity and diversity. Aside from water shortages, need to
improve health also have contributed to an escalating trade in bottled
water. Increasingly, it has been recognized that traditional suppliers of
drinking water such as public and private water works may not always
be able to guarantee micro-biological, mechanical and chemical safety of
their product to the extent previously thought possible. Thus, what is
highlighted is that people are becoming health conscious in so far as
consumption of water is concerned and do not want to depend upon
public or private water works which may be contaminated with virus and
parasite protozoa. For this reason, they want to consume treated water
packaged in bottles. Such treated water, therefore, does not remain
ordinary drinking water per se, which the Legislature intended to exclude
from the definition of „food‟ under Section 2(v) of the PFA Act. In the
aforesaid Code the need to regulate such bottled water from health and
hygiene point of view is emphasized. The Code recognizes general
technique for collecting, processing, packaging, storing, transporting,
distributing and offering for sale a variety of drinking waters other than
other mineral waters for direct consumption. This Code contains various
definitions. For our purposes definitions of „bottled/packaged drinking
water‟ and „food‟ are material and are reproduced below:-
"Bottled/packaged drinking water - Water filled into
hermetically sealed containers of various
compositions, forms, and capacities that is safe and
suitable for direct consumption without necessary
further treatment. Bottled drinking water is
considered as food. The terms "drinking" and
"potable" are used interchangeably in relation to
water.
xxxxx
Food - For the purposes of this Code, the term
includes bottled/packaged drinking water."
15. Thus, even this Code recognizes bottled/packaged drinking water
as „food‟ item, the quality of which needs to be regulated. We, thus, find
no merit in so far as challenge to various Notifications and amendment
to Rules in these two writ petition is concerned. This leaves us with one
prayer in WP(Crl.) No.244/2010, namely, quashing of 21.1.2003 passed
by the learned ACMM II, New Delhi, issuing process against the
petitioner and the consequent proceedings in Crl. Complaint No.14/2003.
It was argued that the standards which were prescribed for packaged
drinking water as per Item A.33 in Appendix B are duly met by the
petitioner and there was no dispute about the same. The violation
alleged in the complaint was that label on the bottles was not put as per
the prescription contained. Our attention was drawn to the report of the
Public Analyst in this behalf as per which the result of the analysis was
declared and at the end it was observed:-
".....and I am of the opinion that the sample is being
sold without ISI certification (violation of Rule
29(48). However, Packaged Drinking Water complies
to standard."
15. Mr. Sudhir Chandra, learned senior counsel, also referred to letter
dated 2.7.2001 addressed by BIS to the petitioner as per which the
petitioner was permitted to consume old stock of labels with stickers
specimen bearing BIS mark and licence numbers. His argument was that
on some bottles these old labels were used with the permission so that
the petitioner is able to consume the said stock of labels and this was
hyper technical violation on the basis of which criminal complaint was
filed, more so when the authorities were satisfied about the standards of
the product sold. It was argued that penal statute had to be construed
strictly as held in The Workmen of M/s. Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co.
of India (Pvt.) Ltd. v. The Management and Others, 1973(1) SCC 813
(Pr.35), G. Giriyappa and Others v. Anantharai L. Parekh and Others,
(1994) 3 SCC 489 (Pr.9). It was further submitted that for this kind of
violation it is only the BIS which could prosecute. Attention was drawn
to two judgments of the Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner,
Assessment-II, Bangalore & Ors. v. Velliappa Textiles Ltd. and
Another, 2003(11) SCC 405 (Pr.5) and Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan
v. State of Gujarat (1997) 7 SCC 622 (Pr.18 & 19).
16. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, argued that
the petition for quashing of the complaint at this stage was not
maintainable. More so when it was found that sample was in violation
of Rule 49(28) of PFA Act as same was being sold without ISI
certification. He submitted that while issuing the process the learned
ACMM had taken note of the necessary facts in his orders dated
5.3.2009 and dealt with the same contention of the petitioner finding
prima facie violation of the said provision as well as violation of Section
2(ix)(k) of the PFA Act, which is punishable under Section 16(1)(9) of
the PFA Act read with Section 7 thereof. He also relied upon the
judgment of this Court in Bureau of Indian Standards v. Pepsico India
Holdings P. Ltd. & Anr., 155 (2008) DLT 588 (DB).
17. After going through the order of the Ld. ACMM, we find that
there were justifiable reasons for taking cognizance of the matter more
so when prima facie violation of Rule 49 (28) of the PFA Act was
found that the water bottles in question were being sold without ISI
certification. May be, when the authorities were satisfied about the
standards of the product sold which was as per specification, the alleged
violation becomes a trivial issue. However, fact remains that as the
specifications contained in the PFA Act or the Rules are to be strictly
complied with and, even when there is a technical violation, this may
give cause to the Food Adulteration authorities to initiate action. In this
backdrop if the Ld. ACMM ultimately finds that the violation was no so
serious and, it was bona fide as well, as contended by the petitioners, the
Ld. ACMM can take a lenient view of the matter. However, that does
not make out a case for quashing of the proceedings under Section 482
Cr.P.C. The other argument of the learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioners relates to petitioners defence which in the first instance are to
be put before the Ld. ACMM and duly proved including the defence that
there was permission given to the petitioner to use old labels.
18. As a result, both these petitions are bereft of any merits and the
same are accordingly dismissed.
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
February 28, 2012 (RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW)
hp/skb JUDGE
