Delhi High Court
Mukesh Kumar vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 7 May, 2012
Author: M. L. Mehta
* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 07.05.2012
+ CRL.M.C. 1458/2012 & Crl.M.A. 5167/2012
MUKESH KUMAR
..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Danish Aftab Chowdhury,
Advocate with Mr.Madhav
Khurana, Advocate.
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.M.N.Dudeja,APP.
With
+ CRL.M.C. 1487/2012 & Crl.M.As. ........(to be numbered)
SHANTA BINDAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Danish Aftab Chowdhury,
Advocate with Mr.Madhav
Khurana, Advocate.
versus
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP.
With
+ CRL.M.C. 1596/2012
MAPRO FODDS PVT LTD ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Danish Aftab Chowdhury,
Advocate with Mr.Madhav
Khurana, Advocate.
versus
Crl.M.Cs. No.1458,1487, 1596 & 1470,1472,1486,1595 of 2012 Page 1 of 6
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.M.N.Dudeja,APP.
With
+ CRL.M.C. 1470/2012, Crl.M.As. 5222-5221/2012
H S ANAND & ANR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Danish Aftab Chowdhury,
Advocate with Mr.Madhav
Khurana, Advocate.
versus
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP.
With
+ CRL.M.C. 1472/2012 & Crl.M.As. 5226-27/2012
SHANTA BINDAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Danish Aftab Chowdhury,
Advocate with Mr.Madhav
Khurana, Advocate.
versus
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP.
With
+ CRL.M.C. 1486/2012, Crl.M.As. 5263-64/2012
MUKESH KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Danish Aftab Chowdhury,
Advocate with Mr.Madhav
Khurana, Advocate.
Crl.M.Cs. No.1458,1487, 1596 & 1470,1472,1486,1595 of 2012 Page 2 of 6
versus
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP.
And
+ CRL.M.C. 1595/2012
MAPRO FOODS PVT LTD ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Danish Aftab Chowdhury,
Advocate with Mr.Madhav
Khurana, Advocate.
versus
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.M.N.Dudeja,APP.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA
M.L. MEHTA, J. (Oral)
1. These two sets of petitions are filed seeking quashing of criminal
complaints filed against the petitioners by the Food Adulteration
Department of Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi as also the summoning orders
dated 22.12.2005. In one set of complaints, the samples which were
taken relate to food article 'Mango Crush' and another set of four cases,
the food article was 'Pineapple Crush'. The samples of both these
commodities on testing by Public Analyst were found to be adulterated.
2. The opinion of the Public Analyst in all the cases relating to
'Mango Crush' and 'Pineapple Crush' reads thus:
" Opinion: - Although there are no standards of Mango
Crush under Appendix B of PFA Act, But it contains
added synthetic colour which is not permitted under
Rule- 29 of PFA Rules."
" Opinion: - Although there are no standards of pineapple
Crush under Appendix B., But it contains added synthetic
colour which is not permitted under rule 29 of PFA
Rules."
3. The Public Analyst identified the added synthetic colour as
'Sunset Yellow' in the samples of 'Mango Crush', whereas in samples
of 'Pineapple Crush' the added synthetic colour was identified as
'Tartrazine'.
4. The complaints are sought to be quashed on the grounds that the
petitioners had licence under food preservation order (FPO) and so, they
could not be prosecuted under the P.F.A. Act. In this regard, it was
submitted that as per the FPO Order, 1955, the use of Tartrazine and
Sunset Yellow colours was permissible. It was also the case of the
petitioners that the use of the aforesaid colours in the sample
commodities was not prohibited under Rule 29 and so, the prosecution
for alleged violation of Rule 29 was not legal. In this regard, the
reliance was also placed on the judgments of this Court in Crl.M.Cs.
3405/2009 and 3407/2009 decided on 21.4.2011.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the
learned APP, I find myself in full agreement with the decisions rendered
by this Court in aforesaid Crl.M.Cs. 3405/2009 and 3407/2009 dated
21.4.2011 and similar other cases. There is no dispute that there was no
quality standard specifically prescribed for 'Pineapple Crush' as also for
'Mango Crush'.
6. This Court in the aforesaid cases held thus:
"11. On reading of the aforesaid provision, it is clear that user of
yellow tartrazine is permissible in fruits syrup, fruit squash and
fruit cordial etc. Undisputably fruits squash and fruits syrups are
the product prepared from fruit juice/puree or concentrate clear
or cloudy obtained from any fruit or several fruits by blending it
with nutritive sweeteners, water and with or without salt. Fruit
crush is also a product made from the fruit or fruit juice/puree or
concentrate of fruit juice only difference is that it contains mere
pulp. Thus, there can be no distinction between the fruit squash,
fruit syrup or fruit crush so far as applicability of the PFA Act and
the Rules prescribed thereunder is concerned. My aforesaid view
finds support from the definition of squashes, crush, fruit
syrups/fruit sarbats and barley water given in A.16.21 of Appendix
B incorporated in the Appendix B subsequently by an amendment
in the year 2005, which reads thus:
"A.16.21- SQUASHES, CRUSHES, FRUIT SYRUPS/FRUIT
SHARBATS
AND BARELY WATER means the product prepared from
unfermented but fermentable fruit juice/puree or
concentrate clear or cloudy, obtained from any suitable
fruit or several fruits
by blending it with nutritive sweeteners, water and with or
without salt, aromatic herbs, peel oil and any other
ingredients suitable to the products."
12. Taking into account that fruits squash/fruit syrup as also the
fruit crush are derived from the ripe fruit, the standard applicable
to all these products ought to be similar. Admittedly, at the
relevant time, when the sample was taken, there was no standard
prescribed for fruit crush. Therefore, under the circumstances it
has to be treated at par with fruit products detailed in Rule 29(c)
of PFA Rules and the standards applicable fruit
squash/syrup/cordially ought to have been applied in the instant
case. Otherwise also, it falls within the category of non-alcoholic
fruit drink and is covered under Rule 29 of PFA Rules.
Indisputably, as per Rule 29 (c) and (d) of PFA Rules, user of
tartrazine, sunset yellow in manufacture of fruit squash, fruit syrup
etc. and nonalcoholic fruit drink etc. is permissible. Therefore, by
no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the petitioner or his
company has violated the provisions of PFA Act or the PFA Rules
framed thereunder".
7. Following the aforesaid decisions rendered by this Court and
admittedly, which have not been assailed by the PFA Department till
date, I am of the view that the summoning order dated 22.12.2005 of the
learned M.M. passed in all the criminal complaints are not sustainable
under the law. Consequently, all the complaints and the impugned
summoning order as also the proceedings emanating therefrom are
hereby quashed.
5. Petitions stand disposed of.
M.L. MEHTA, J.
MAY 07, 2012/akb
