Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


M/S Pepsico India Holdings Ltd. v. State Of U.P. & Others - APPLICATION U/s 482 No. 339 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 796 (12 January 2006)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Hon'ble M. K. Mittal, J.

Heard Sri R. K. Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the proceedings of the Criminal Case No. 12833 of 2004 under Sections 7/16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, P.S. Bhelupur, Varanasi (State Vs Amarish Singh and others), pending in the Court of Ist A.C.J.M., District Varanasi.

Brief facts of the case are that a sample of Pepsi bottle was take by the food Inspector on 22.4.2002 from the shop of M/s Amarish Singh co accused. It was found that the compliance of Rule 32(e)  of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 1955 was not made. Sample was sent for chemical examination and the report of the chemical examiner shows that the sample was not adulterated. However,  there was no compliance of Rule 32 (e). Complaint was filed against the applicant and two others after the sanction was  given by the competent authority.

The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the sample was not found adulterated and the complaint has been wrongly filed against the applicant who is the manufacturer.

Learned counsel for the accused applicant has contended that the company had disclosed the date and month of the product before the bottles as is required under Rule 32 (e) as has been mentioned in para 11 of the affidavit.

Learned A.G.A. has contended that the applicant did not comply with the provision of Rule 32(e) and the complaint has been rightly filed against him. According to report of the public analyst the month/year of the packing and batch number were not declared.

Rule 32(e) provides that a distinctive batch number or lot number or code number, either in numericals or alphabets or in  combination, the numericals or alphabets or their combination, representing the batch number or lot number or code number being preceded by the words "Batch No.", or "Batch or Lot No." or "Lot" or any distinguishing prefix; provided that in case of canned food, the batch number maybe given at the bottom, or on the lid of the container, but the words "Batch No given at the bottom or on the lid shall appear on the body of the container. Learned counsel while arguing the case referred to rule 32(i) and contended that if the bottle is returnable than it is not required to give batch number and the year and that if the contents are carbonated water, the proviso to rule 32(i) provides that if the bottle contains carbonated water (plain soda) than the provisions except date of manufacture and best before date need not be marked on the bottle but this provision came into effect from 1.4.2003. More over the contents of the bottle in the present case are sweetent carbonated beverage (pepsi) and not plain carbonated water. Moreover even this proviso requires that the manufacture has to mention the date of manufacture as well as best before date. Therefore this argument is of no avail to the applicant.

Learned counsel for the applicant has further contended that in similar matters stay orders have been passed by other benches of this Court as well as by Uttaranchal High Court and as an exemplar he has filed annexure no. 5 and 6. But the complete facts of these case are not available in these orders and they do not help the applicant. It may be mentioned that the applicant has no where mentioned in specific words, in his affidavit, that he has complied with the provisions of Rule 32 (e).

In the circumstances, there is no ground to quash the proceedings and the application is liable to be dismissed. However if the applicant surrenders in the trial Court and prays for bail within 20 days from today, learned Magistrate shall decide the same expeditiously accordingly to law. During this period of 20 days execution of non bailable warrants against the applicant shall remain stayed.

Dated: 12.1.2006

RKS/339 of 2006


Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.