ORDER
Crl. M(M) No. 1173/98
1. By this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners seek quashing of the criminal proceedings emanating from the complaint case No. 23/97 filed under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and pending on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi.
2. The gravemen of the charge against the petitioner was that the batch number was not mentioned on the labels of the tins used for storing the food articles, to viz., mixed pickles, which was contrary to the provisions of Rule 32(e). Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that no prosecution could be launched against the petitioner for the alleged violation of the Rule 32(e) of the Rules framed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act inasmuch as the said rule has been declared by the Supreme Court as ultra vires in the case of Dwarka Nath Vs. MCD . In my opinion, the aforesaid statement of the learned counsel merits acceptance. In this connection, I may usefully excerpt the following observations of
the Supreme Court in the case of Dwarka Nath (supra) :
3. We are not inclined to accept the contention of Mr. Manchanda that clause (b) of Rule 32 is beyond the rule making power of the Central Government under Section 23(1)(d) of the Act. It is well known that in many cases in business the name and address of a manufacturer, or importer, or vendor or packer has become associated with the character, quality or quantity of the article and as such we are of the opinion that clause (b) of Rule 32 is a valid rule. In this case, as pointed out by Mr. Manchanda there has been a substantial compliance with that rule by the appellants giving in the label the address as “Mohan Ghee Laboratories, New Delhi/ 5″. But according to the requirement of the rule, some more particulars will have to be given namely, the number of the premises and the locality or the area where the premises is situate. This is the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution also. Therefore, it can be said that there is a technical breach of clause(b) of Rule 32 inasmuch as full particulars, referred to above, have not been given by the appellants in the label. No doubt, the appellants have been convicted for breach of clauses (b) and (e) of Rule 32 and a fine of Rs. 1/- has been imposed. We have already held that clause (e) of Rule 32 is invalid and the appellants cannot be convicted for non-compliance of the same.”
4. In my opinion, the case in hand is squarely covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in Dwarka Nath and thus the petitioners’ prosecution is liable to be quashed.
5. In the result, the petition is allowed and the criminal proceedings emanating from the complaint case No. 23/97 and pending on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate Delhi are quashed. The bail bonds of the petitioner are discharged.