
Raghav Gupta v
State (NCT of Delhi) and Another
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 562 OF 2020
(Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 2942 of 2020)
Decided on September 4, 2020.
BENCH– R.F. Nariman, Navin Sinha, Indira Banerjee,
JJ.
FACTS
Appellant
is one of the directors of a beverage company which import drink from foreign
manufacturer duly cleared by Customs Department. Sealed samples of Juice Drink of
concerned beverage company was purchased by Food Inspector for analysis. The
report of the Public Analyststates that the sample confirmed to comply with the
standards but was misbranded which is in violation of Food Adulteration Rule,1955
(hereinafter referred as ‘Rule’) namely Rule 32(e) for lacking necessary declaration of lot/batch numbers. The
appellant filed an application for discharge on the ground that the product had
the necessary barcode on it which
contained all the relevant information as required by Rule 32(e) such as batch
no. /code no./lot no.
[See Rule
32(e): Package of food to carry a label : A distinctive batch number or
lot number or code number, either in numericals or alphabets or in 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 may be 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.]
ISSUE
Whether
barcode containing all the relevant information constitute necessary
declaration for purpose of Rule 32(e)?
HELD
The
Supreme Court answered the question in positive and said that barcode available
on the sample constitute necessary declaration of relevant information for
purpose of Rule 32(e) as same could be decoded by barcode reader.