‘No adulteration’: Delhi High Court quashes 1995 case over misbranding of marinade

“The allegations against the accused persons are not founded on any defect in the contents of the food article. The Public Analyst report does not record that the sample was adulterated or that its contents failed to conform to the prescribed standards. The alleged violation arises only on account of the absence of a distinctive batch number, lot number or code number on the packets,” the order stated.

If the contents were adulterated, the benefit of the warning policy would be “unavailable”, it said, adding that in such a case “prosecution may be launched for both adulteration and breach of the labelling requirements.”

‘No adulteration, only misbranding’

On October 31, 1995, a Delhi food inspector collected a sample of ‘Hot and Spicy Marinade’ from a PepsiCo restaurant in New Friends Colony. The three sealed 680-gram packets did not carry a batch, lot or code number on its labels. The public analyst said the sample was misbranded and violated Rules 32(e) and (f) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration (PFA) Rules, 1955.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma quashed the complaint, noting that it was a first-time technical offence.

The ‘Hot and Spicy Marinade’ was supplied to PepsiCo by Kancor Flavours and Extracts Ltd, which allegedly imported it from its Singapore manufacturer. A complaint was lodged against 11 accused, including Kancor, its directors and general managers, alleging violations of the PFA Act and Rules. In 2010, the trial court directed the remaining accused, including the petitioners, to appear personally for framing of notice.

Appearing for Kancor Ingredients Ltd, Senior Advocate Pramod Kumar Dubey, along with advocates Puneet Relan, Ramchandurni B Siddhartha, Khushi Arora and Shivangi Mishra, submitted that the allegations are only regarding misbranding the food article, due to the absence of a batch code/lot number, and not due to any adulteration.

It was argued that according to a September 1985 notification, for a first offence of misbranding under Rule 32 of the PFA Rules, the erring party should be given only a written warning, and prosecution must be done only in case of a later violation. The present case concerns a first-time offence, and no warning, written or otherwise, was ever issued to the party before the current complaint.

First-time technical offence: Court

The high court noted that the notification dated September 20, 1985 recorded that in several cases, the contents of sealed food articles were found to adhere to the prescribed standards, but the labelling did not comply with Rule 32 of the PFA Rules. When the contents of a sealed packet follow prescribed standards, a deficiency in labelling is considered a technical offence.

Accordingly, the court quashed the complaint and the related proceedings, noting that it was a first-time technical offence involving missing batch/lot numbers and the food in the packets was not adulterated.