2011 (12) TMI 617 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues involved: Quashment of charge sheet u/s 16(1)(a)(i) read with Sections 7(i)(ii) and 2(ia)(m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 based on the presence of vegetable oil and Benzoic Acid in Cadbury 5 Star Chocolates.

Summary:

Adulteration Issue:
The case involved M/s. Cadbury India Private Limited and its officers seeking quashment of the charge sheet based on the presence of vegetable oil and Benzoic Acid in Cadbury 5 Star Chocolates. The Public Analyst opined that the sample was both adulterated and misbranded. The defense argued that the presence of hydrogenated vegetable oils in the chocolate portion would constitute adulteration. However, the Analyst Report did not distinguish between the chocolate portion and the Filled Portion of the chocolate, leading to a lack of clarity. The court referred to a similar case in Jharkhand High Court and concluded that unless the prohibited vegetable oils were found in the chocolate portion, the sample cannot be considered adulterated.

Misbranding Issue:
The charge of misbranding was based on the presence of Benzoic Acid in the sample, which was not declared on the label. The defense contended that as per Rule 32 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, labeling details are not necessary when the net weight of the product is 20 grams or less. Since the net weight of the samples was 16 grams, it was not mandatory to label the sample with the ingredients used. Therefore, the court held that the petitioners were not guilty of misbranding the product.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the Criminal Petition, quashing the case against the petitioners as they were not found guilty of either adulteration or misbranding of the sample. The prosecution under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was deemed misconceived, leading to the quashing of the charge sheet.