Logo not correctly placed and allegation of misbranding after finding some elements of non vegetarian in milk biscuits, the ingredient of the offence under Section 16(1)(a) (i) of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 are not made out against the petitioner.
The petitioner is the Managing Director of Britannia Industries Ltd. Having its head office at Kolkata. The Milk Bikis Biscuits were seized from M/s Rashmi Enterprises who is authorized wholesale dealer and the sample of the Biscuits was sent to the Public Analyst, Patna. The report of public analyst simply states that “Logo is not fixed on the proper site of the label”.
The F.I.R. under Food Adulteration Act,1954 was lodged. According to F.I.R. it is alleged that Milk Biscuits which were sold did not conform to the rule of labelling andwere therefore misbranded. The rules regarding labelling are provided in Part-II of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules,1955. The rules envisage that the trade name, description of the food ingredients, the Logo with respect to the article being vegetarian or non-vegetarian should be clearly stated. In essence the rules require that the manufacturer describes the food item so that the purchaser is aware of the contents etc. of the food article.
It has been contended by the opposite party that the Logo declaring the food article to be vegetarian was not placed at the proper place. It is a hyper technical objection which is not justified in view of the fact that there is no violation of other provisions of Act & Rules since it is not the prosecution case that the Logo place showed the food article to be vegetarian and it turned out on examination to contain articles which were non vegetarian. The objection is not tenable as the violation or the so-called “site” where the Logo was placed has not been described by the report of the analyst.
Source:- Patna High Court in Vinita Bali vs The State of Bihar
The F.I.R. under Food Adulteration Act,1954 was lodged. According to F.I.R. it is alleged that Milk Biscuits which were sold did not conform to the rule of labelling andwere therefore misbranded. The rules regarding labelling are provided in Part-II of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules,1955. The rules envisage that the trade name, description of the food ingredients, the Logo with respect to the article being vegetarian or non-vegetarian should be clearly stated. In essence the rules require that the manufacturer describes the food item so that the purchaser is aware of the contents etc. of the food article.
It has been contended by the opposite party that the Logo declaring the food article to be vegetarian was not placed at the proper place. It is a hyper technical objection which is not justified in view of the fact that there is no violation of other provisions of Act & Rules since it is not the prosecution case that the Logo place showed the food article to be vegetarian and it turned out on examination to contain articles which were non vegetarian. The objection is not tenable as the violation or the so-called “site” where the Logo was placed has not been described by the report of the analyst.
Source:- Patna High Court in Vinita Bali vs The State of Bihar
For any query Please contact Advocate Dinesh Miglani at 9215514436 or at dineshmiglani@hotmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment