Not Mentioning Batch Number, Best Before Or Veg/ Non-Veg Symbol On Food Articles Is An Offence U/S 7 Prevention Of Food Adulteration Act: Karnataka HC

The Karnataka High Court has said that food articles sold without labels mentioning its batch number, 'best before' and 'Veg' or 'Non-veg' symbol, is clearly an offence under Section 7(i) and 7(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, punishable under Section 16(1)(a) thereof. A single judge bench of Justice Dr. H.B. Prabhakara Sastry said,"Admittedly, the food article sold was not labelled in accordance with the requirement of the Act and the Rules made there under, by mentioning its batch number, 'best before' and 'Veg' or 'Non-veg' symbol, which is clearly an offence under Section 7(i) and 7(ii) punishable under Section 16(1)(a) of the Act."The bench made the observation while confirming the order passed by the trial court and revision court convicting one Syed Ahammed for storing and selling misbranded and adulterated coffee powder in his Shop. The complainant, a Food Inspector, alleged that while on his duty he visited the Petitioner's a Shop and inspected the coffee seeds and its powder which were meant for public sale and noticed that the accused had stored and was selling misbranded and adulterated coffee powder in his Shop. The complainant, accompanied with his staff, purchased 600 grams of coffee powder and subjected them for scientific analysis and through the report from the Analyst, confirmed that the coffee power was adulterated and misbranded as it was found that the caffeine content in it was 0.4% and aqueous extract was 55.0% and that it was also misbranded by virtue of non printing of batch number and 'best before' on it. Hence, the complainant alleged that the accused had committed the offences punishable under Sections 7(i) and 7(ii) and 16(a)(i) of the Act. The trial court vide its order dated 20-06-2016, convicted the accused and the same was upheld by the revision court. Petitioners arguments: The counsel for the petitioner argued that the coffee power was not adulterated, because, even the Public Analyst in its report did not say that the commodity/article was injurious to the health, as such, it does not attract Clause (l) or Clause (m) of Section 2(ia) of the Act. Secondly, there was no misbranding of the commodity since the Shop of the accused was a small Shop where he is only a retailer in coffee seeds and coffee powder. Findings: The court referred to the evidence of witnesses and the scientific analysis report and noted that though the prescribed standard for the presence of caffeine in the coffee powder was not less than 0.6%, however, the commodity (sample) tested was showing only 0.4% of caffeine in it. Furthermore, the aqueous extract, which according to prescribed standard, was to be not more than 50% was found to be at 55%. The Analyst also noticed that the label fastened to the article by the seller was showing that it was manufactured by Select Coffee Works, Azad Road, Sakaleshpura, but the batch number, 'best before' and 'veg' or 'Non-veg' symbol were also not printed upon it. The Court rejected the contention of the petitioner that since the Public Analyst and Chemical Examiner has not opined that the commodity/article was injurious to health, the commodity tested cannot be called as adulterated. It referred to Clause (m) of Section 2(ia), which says that an article of food shall be deemed to be adulterated "If the quality or purity of the article falls below the prescribed standard or its constituents are present in quantities not within the prescribed limits of variability but which does not render it injurious to health." The Court said the above section is squarely applicable to the case on hand. It added, "The learned counsel for the revision petitioner could not able to convince the Court that the article in question which was the coffee powder was a primary food as defined under Section 2(xiia) of the Act. Thus, the article/commodity has proved to be adulterated." Thus it upheld the decision of the Trial Court and dismissed the petition. Case Title: Syed Ahammed v. State of Karnataka Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.1094 OF 2018 4Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 458 Date of Order: 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022 Appearance: J.S. Somashekar, Advocate for petitioner; V.S. Vinayaka, High Court Govt. Pleader for respondent. Click Here To Read/Download Order

Not Mentioning Batch Number, Best Before Or Veg/ Non-Veg Symbol On Food Articles Is An Offence U/S 7 Prevention Of Food Adulteration Act: Karnataka HC

Mustafa Plumber

Tags