The Delhi High Court has quashed criminal proceedings arising from a 1995 food-safety prosecution, holding that a first-time violation concerning only deficient labelling could not have been prosecuted without first issuing a written warning in terms of a 1985 Delhi Government notification.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma was dealing with a petition seeking quashing of a complaint pending before the ACMM-II, Patiala House Courts, concerning a sample of ‘Hot and Spicy Marinade’ collected by a Food Inspector in October 1995. The sample was found to be misbranded because the packets did not carry the requisite distinctive batch number, lot number or code number under Rule 32(e) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. The Public Analyst did not find the contents of the food article to be adulterated.
The Court examined a Government of NCT of Delhi notification dated September 20, 1985, which provided that where the contents of a sealed food article conformed to prescribed standards but the labelling was deficient, the violation was treated as a technical offence. In such cases, a written warning was required to be issued initially, with prosecution contemplated if the practice was repeated after the warning. The policy did not apply where the contents themselves were adulterated.
The High Court noted that the present case involved a first-time violation, with no allegation that a prior warning had been issued or that the alleged violation had been repeated. It held that the prosecution could not disregard the procedure contemplated by the 1985 notification and that, in the absence of a prior written warning, prosecution for the alleged misbranding was not justified.
The Court also rejected the argument that the notification would not apply because the food article had been imported and Section 5 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 had also been invoked. It observed that the Section 5 allegation was consequential to the alleged misbranding under Section 2(ix)(k), which itself arose only from the Rule 32(e) labelling deficiency. The mere fact that the food article was imported could not take the case outside the scope of the warning policy.
Accordingly, the Court held that prosecution for the alleged violation of Rule 32(e) and the consequential violation of Section 5 could not have been initiated without first complying with the requirement of issuing a written warning. Since no such warning had been issued and the case concerned only a first-time labelling violation, continuation of the prosecution was held contrary to the notified policy.
The High Court consequently quashed the complaint and consequential proceedings insofar as they related to the alleged violations of Rule 32(e) and Section 5 of the PFA Act. However, proceedings concerning the separate allegation under Rule 50(7) of the PFA Rules against the restaurant and its concerned accused were directed to continue in accordance with law.
