2008 (3) TMI 670 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether from the evidence on record the article of food in question is soyabean oil? Whether a clear case of misbranding is made out?

Summary

Issues: Misbranding of food product under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Misbranding of Food Product
The case involves an appeal arising from the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court regarding the misbranding of a food product, specifically soyabean oil, under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The High Court held that although the prosecution was quashed, a clear case of misbranding was made out due to the labeling of the product containing pictures of vegetables not connected with soyabean oil. The Public Analyst's report highlighted that the pictures on the label were an exaggeration of the product's quality, violating Rule 37 D of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955.

Issue 2: Legal Proceedings
The Food Inspector filed a complaint under the Act against the appellant, a company engaged in the manufacture and sale of soyabean oil. The complaint alleged contravention of Section 2(ix)(k) and Rule 37 D of the PFA Rules. The appellant challenged the prosecution under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, arguing that the labeling did not constitute misbranding as no false claims were made. The High Court quashed the criminal proceedings, emphasizing the lack of warranty produced by the vendor and the absence of allegations regarding the appellant's involvement in misbranding.

Issue 3: Interpretation of Rule 37 D
The core contention revolved around the interpretation of Rule 37 D of the PFA Rules, specifically regarding the labeling of edible oils and fats. The Rule prohibits expressions that exaggerate the quality of the product, including terms like "super-refined" or "cholesterol-friendly." The principle of ejusdem generis was applied to interpret the rule, restricting the scope of prohibited expressions to those of the same kind or class as specifically listed.

Issue 4: Misbranding Determination
The Supreme Court analyzed the labeling of the soyabean oil product, which featured pictures of vegetables. The appellant argued that the images depicted the oil's purpose for cooking vegetables and did not exaggerate its quality. The Court emphasized that unless the pictures exaggerated the product's quality, they did not fall under the misbranding prohibition of Rule 37 D. The Court concluded that the High Court erred in finding misbranding as the vegetable pictures did not indicate an exaggeration of the product's quality, especially considering the oil's intended use in cooking the depicted vegetables.

Conclusion
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's finding of misbranding and violation of Rule 37 D of the PFA Rules. The judgment clarified the interpretation of the rule in the context of labeling edible oils and fats, emphasizing that mere depiction of vegetables on the label did not constitute misbranding unless it exaggerated the product's quality.