Date of the Judgment: September 4, 2020
Citation: Raghav Gupta vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2020) INSC 562
Judges: R.F. Nariman J., Navin Sinha J., Indira Banerjee J.
Can a food product be considered misbranded if the required information is available in a barcode instead of being explicitly printed on the label? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case concerning the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The Court held that if a barcode contains all the necessary information, the product cannot be deemed misbranded, even if the information is not directly printed on the packaging. This judgment has significant implications for how food products are labeled and regulated in India. The bench comprised of Justices R.F. Nariman, Navin Sinha and Indira Banerjee, with the judgment authored by Justice Navin Sinha.
Case Background
On May 3, 2011, a Food Inspector purchased sealed samples of Snapple Juice Drink for analysis. The Public Analyst’s report, dated May 30, 2011, stated that while the sample conformed to the required standards, it was misbranded. The reason for this was the violation of Rule 32(e) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, as the product lacked the necessary declaration of lot/batch numbers. The appellant, Raghav Gupta, was a Director of M/s. V & V Beverages Pvt. Ltd., the company that imported the drink from a foreign manufacturer, Schweppes International Rye Brook. The product had been duly cleared by the Customs department.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| May 3, 2011 | Food Inspector purchased samples of Snapple Juice Drink. |
| May 30, 2011 | Public Analyst’s report stated the sample was misbranded for violating Rule 32(e). |
| 2012 | Complaint case no. 4 of 2012 was lodged by the Food Inspector. |
| September 4, 2020 | Supreme Court quashed the prosecution. |
Course of Proceedings
A complaint case was lodged by the Food Inspector based on the report dated May 30, 2011. Notices were issued to the appellant under Section 251 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The appellant filed an application for discharge under Section 294 of the Criminal Procedure Code read with Section 192 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The appellant argued that the product had a barcode containing all the information required by Rule 32(e), such as batch number/code number/lot number. The application was rejected. The appellant raised the same ground before the High Court, which also did not consider the argument.
Legal Framework
The case revolves around Rule 32(e) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, which was framed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. Rule 32(e) mandates that packaged food products must have a declaration of the lot number, batch number, or code number to facilitate tracing the product back to its manufacturer. The relevant part of the rule is not quoted verbatim in the source document. The purpose of this rule is to ensure traceability and accountability in the food supply chain.
Arguments
The appellant, represented by Ms. Geeta Luthra, argued that the necessary information required under Rule 32(e) was available in the barcode present on the product. This barcode, when scanned, could reveal the batch number, lot number, and code number, which would allow the product to be traced back to the manufacturer. The appellant contended that the barcode served the same purpose as a printed declaration and should be considered as fulfilling the requirements of Rule 32(e).
The respondent, represented by Shri Jayant K. Sud, did not counter the appellant’s submission that the barcode contained the necessary information.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s Submission: The product was not misbranded. |
|
| Respondent’s Submission: Did not counter the appellant’s submission. |
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
- Whether the presence of a barcode containing the necessary information fulfills the requirements of Rule 32(e) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, even if the information is not explicitly printed on the packaging?
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | How the Court Dealt with It |
|---|---|
| Whether the presence of a barcode containing the necessary information fulfills the requirements of Rule 32(e)? | The Court held that since the barcode contained all the necessary information required by Rule 32(e), the prosecution was an abuse of process. The Court stated that the barcode could be decoded by a barcode scanner and facilitated tracing the product to the manufacturer. |
Authorities
No authorities (cases, books, or legal provisions) were explicitly mentioned or considered by the court in the provided source document.
Judgment
| Submission | How the Court Treated It |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s submission that the barcode contained the necessary information under Rule 32(e). | The Court accepted this submission. It acknowledged that the barcode contained the lot/code/batch identification information and could be decoded by a scanner. |
| Respondent’s submission that the product was misbranded for lacking explicit declaration of lot/batch numbers. | The Court did not accept this submission. It held that since the information was available in the barcode, the prosecution was an abuse of the process of law. |
The court held that the barcode contained the required information under Rule 32(e). The court stated that “…the relevant information under Rule 32(e) with regard to the lot/code/batch identification to facilitate it being traced to the manufacturer are available in the barcode and which can be decoded by a barcode scanner…”. The court further reasoned that allowing the prosecution to continue would be an abuse of the process of law, causing a sheer waste of time and unnecessary harassment to the appellant.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the fact that the barcode on the product contained all the necessary information required by Rule 32(e) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. The Court emphasized that the barcode could be easily scanned to reveal the lot/code/batch identification, which is the main purpose of the rule. The Court also considered that continuing the prosecution would be a waste of time and cause unnecessary harassment to the appellant, especially given that the required information was indeed available, albeit in a different format.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Availability of information in barcode | 60% |
| Abuse of process of law | 30% |
| Unnecessary harassment to the appellant | 10% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 20% |
| Law | 80% |
The Court’s reasoning was based on the understanding that the purpose of Rule 32(e) is to ensure traceability of the product, which was achieved through the barcode. The court observed that “no useful purpose is going to be served by allowing the present prosecution to continue and it will be an abuse of the process of law, causing sheer waste of time, causing unnecessary harassment to the appellant, if the prosecution is allowed to continue.” The court also noted that the barcode was available on the sample and that the relevant information under Rule 32(e) was available in the barcode.
Key Takeaways
- ✓ Barcodes containing necessary information such as lot/batch numbers can fulfill the labeling requirements under Rule 32(e) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955.
- ✓ Prosecution for misbranding may be quashed if the required information is available in a barcode, even if not explicitly printed on the packaging.
- ✓ This judgment recognizes the role of technology in meeting regulatory requirements and reduces unnecessary harassment of businesses.
Directions
No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this case. The court simply quashed the prosecution.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that a barcode containing the necessary information as required under Rule 32(e) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, is sufficient to meet the labeling requirements, even if the information is not explicitly printed on the product packaging. This judgment clarifies that the intent of the rule is to ensure traceability, and if that is achieved through a barcode, the product cannot be deemed misbranded. This is a departure from a strict interpretation requiring all information to be printed directly on the label.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court quashed the prosecution of the appellant, Raghav Gupta, holding that the presence of a barcode containing the necessary information fulfilled the labeling requirements under Rule 32(e) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. The Court emphasized that the barcode served the purpose of traceability and that continuing the prosecution would be an abuse of the process of law. This judgment provides a practical approach to labeling requirements, recognizing the role of technology in ensuring compliance.
Source: Raghav Gupta vs. State