Jharkhand High Court
Mukesh Kumar Agarwal vs The State Of Jharkhand on 1 December, 2023
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 2280 of 2012
Mukesh Kumar Agarwal ...... Petitioner
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand
2. Ravi Bhushan Shrivastava
...... Opp. Parties
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Rishav Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Bishambhar Shastri, A.P.P.
.
............
10/Dated: 01/12/2023
Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.
Bishambhar Shastri, learned counsel for the State.
2. This petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal
proceeding including order taking cognizance dated 07.07.2012 in connection
with PFA Case No. 4 of 2006 pending in the Court of learned Sub-Divisional
Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad.
3. The complaint case has been filed alleging therein that the Food
Inspector, MADA, Gomoh, Dhanbad on 19.02.2006 purchased three bottles of
(Kinley) Carbonated Water (500 ml) from Ashirwad Marketing Private Limited,
R/C-10, Flat No. 2, Housing Colony, Dhanbad. The complainant (Food
Inspector) sent the said bottles to the Local Health Authority, Mineral Area
Development Authority, Dhanbad for the purposes of analysis. Thereafter, the
public analyst examined the contents of the above sample and prepared an
analysis report dated 25.02.2006, inter alia disclosing that that the sample of
Kinley (Carbonated Club Soda) is misbranded, because the date of manufacture
was 01.10.2005 in which it was written "BEST BEFORE" two months from the
date of manufacturing and the aforesaid sample was being sold after the
expiry of the BEST BEFORE and thus there has been violation of Rule 32 of the
Prevention of Food Adulteration, Rules, 1955.
4. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner was a distributor of M/s Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd.
He submits that there is no specific allegation against the petitioner. He
submits that the case has been registered only on the ground that product was
displayed was not meant for sale as 'Best Before' period of two months had
already expired. He submits that apart from that there is no allegation of any
adulterated of clubbed soda was being sold by the distributor. He submits that
there is no independent witness of the seizure list which is in violation of
section 10(7) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. He submits that the
case is best before use the condition was interpreted by the Delhi High Court in
the case "Marico Ltd. & Ors. Vs. State of Delhi and Another"2015 SCC
Online Del 7162 wherein para 9 it has been held as under:
"9. Significance of the declaration "Best Before" in relation to the right under
Section 13(2) of the Act has been explained by a learned Single Judge of the
Bombay High Court in Shri Rohit Mull v. State of Goa 2006 (1) FAC 58 and the
decision was quoted with approval by a Division Bench in Shivkumar v. State of
Maharashtra (supra). The relevant observations made in Rohit Mull's case may
be reproduced as under-
"6. "Best Before Date' shown on the label is in terms of Rule 32(1) of the
Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 and in terms of Explanation VII
below the said Rule it means the date which signifies the end of the period
under any stated storage conditions during which the product will remain fully
marketable and will retain any specific qualities for which tacit or express claims
have been made. The explanation also states that however, provided that
beyond the date the food may still be perfectly satisfactorily."
5. He further relied in the case of "S.S. Gokul Krishnan & Ors. Vs.
State of N.C.T. of Delhi"2009 (108) DRJ 669. On these grounds he
submits that the entire criminal proceeding may be quashed.
6. Mr. Bishambhar Shastri, learned counsel for the State submits that the
Food Inspector is a competent person to lodge case and the notification to that
effect is there in view of section 20(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration
Act. He submits that allegations are there and all these points taken by the
petitioner may be agitated before the learned court.
7. The Court finds that only allegation is there that the word best before
use' was indicated in the product and it was kept for sale despite expiry of the
said product before use before two months and apart from that there is nothing
against this petitioner. 'Best Before Date' shown on the label is in terms of
Rules 32(1) of the Prevention Adulteration Rules, 1955 and in terms of
Explanation VII below the said rule it means the date which signifies the end
of the period under any stated storage conditions during which the product will
remain fully marketable and will retain any specific qualities for which tacit or
express claims have been made. The Explanation also states that however
provided that beyond the date the food may still be perfectly satisfactorily.
8. In view of that it appears that to allow the proceeding to be
continue will amount the abuse of process of law. Further the case of the
petitioner is fortified in view of two judgments of the Delhi High Court in the
case of "Marico Ltd(supra) and S.S. Gokul Krishnan (supra.
9. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including order taking
cognizance dated 07.07.2012 in connection with PFA Case No. 4 of 2006
pending in the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, are
quashed.
10. This petition stands allowed and disposed of. Pending I.A, if any,
stands disposed of. Interim order is vacated.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Satyarthi/
