Observing many consumers in India know the meaning of 'juice' but are not conversant with the word 'brand', the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a petition filed by a juice manufacturing company which was summoned for labelling its product as 'World's No.1 Juice Brand’. The HC was hearing the petition filed by Schreiber Dynamix Dairies Private Limited, seeking the quashing of the complaint of June 13, 2011, and its subsequent proceedings including the order of June 13, 2011, and of March 21, 2014, whereby summoning order was issued against the company by Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Rohtak in the exercise of power under Section 20A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. As per the case, the complaint was filed by Food Inspector, Rohtak, alleging violation of Section 7 of the Act claiming that the statement made by the petitioner company on the label of the sample 'World's No.1 Juice Brand' was misleading and misbranded and thus amounted to violation of Rule 37 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. After the complaint report of the public analyst was filed, on June 13, 2011, CJM, Rohtak ordered the complaint to be treated as a warrant case against the company. The counsel for the company contended Rule 37 mandates that there should not be any false or misleading statement concerning the food contained in the package or concerning the quality or the nutritive value or in relation to the place of origin of the said food and thus it would not constitute an offence as defined under Rule 37 of the 1955 Rules. The company’s counsel further contended that the statement ‘No.1 Juice Brand’ is concerned, “the same does not concern the food item contained in the package and apart therefrom the claim is not false. The brand of the petitioner i.e. Tropicana is indeed the No.1 brand in packaged 100% juice in the world”. On the other hand, the State Counsel submitted that as per Rule 32 read with Rule 37 prepackaged food should not carry any label which is misleading or deceptive or is likely to create an erroneous impression regarding its character. The State counsel added that the packaged food in question is a ready-to-serve fruit beverage and not a fruit juice, thus by making a statement on the label, ‘World's No.1 Juice Brand’ an effort has been made by the petitioner to deceive consumers and pass on the beverage as a fruit juice which would fall within the definition of misbranded ibid. The bench of Justice Pankaj Jain, on hearing the contentions, said, “The statement made is in English language which is not native. Many of the customers in India know the meaning of 'juice' but are not conversant with the word 'brand'. To answer 'whether the statement made on the label is deceptive or not', the standard to be applied is not of a vigilant consumer but of an unwary normal consumer of the products offered by the petitioner. A normal consumer is a man of imperfect recollection and a statement on the label affects him”. “The Court has to put itself in the position of an average customer and ask a question whether the food article is being passed off creating deception. The likelihood of confusion or deception is to be seen in relation to average unwary customers. The food article is not juice,” said the Bench. Justice Jain said, at this stage, to hold that the statement 'World's No.1 Juice Brand' does not amount to deception and would thus not constitute 'misbranding' would be beyond the scope of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). “The statement contained on the label does not amount to misbranding of the product cannot be recorded,” read the order passed by Justice Jain.
