Proprietary Food Weighing Under 60 Grams Exempted From Mandatory Manufacturing and Expiry Date Labeling Declarations

The appellant (Food Inspector) purchased 15 packets of "Balaji Wafers" (40g each) from M/s. Vimal Agency on August 5, 1998, for analysis

The Public Analyst declared the sample "misbranded" because the date of manufacture, batch number, and expiry date were allegedly not printed on the labels

After obtaining sanction, a complaint was filed against the retailer, distributor, and manufacturer under the Prevention of Food Adulteration (PFA) Act, 1954

The trial court acquitted the accused on December 31, 2011, citing procedural lapses and lack of evidence

The Food Inspector appealed this acquittal

1. Whether the learned Trial Court erred in law or fact while appreciating the evidence of the prosecution witnesses

2. Whether the impugned judgment and order of acquittal suffered from illegality or perversity regarding compliance with PFA Rules

The court applied Section 2(ix)(k) of the PFA Act regarding the definition of misbranding and Rule 32(f) concerning label requirements

It relied on Rule 37A and 37B regarding proprietary foods, which stipulates that for non-standardized food, only the name and category are required on labels

The court applied Section 23(1)(a), which exempts packages weighing less than 60g from declaring manufacturing dates and batch numbers

Procedurally, it followed the principle from Chimanlal Govindji Thakker v. State of Gujarat regarding the mandatory 7-day window to forward analysis reports under Rule 9A

The double presumption of innocence in acquittal appeals as established in Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka

First, the sanction for prosecution was granted under Section 7(i) (adulteration), whereas the allegation was misbranding under Section 7(ii), indicating a total non-application of mind by the sanctioning authority

Second, there was a material discrepancy in sample serial numbers between the collection memo and the Public Analyst's report, suggesting the report pertained to a different sample

Third, because the wafers were in 40g packets (less than 60g), they were legally exempt from the very labeling requirements they were accused of violating

Fourth, the Food Inspector failed to provide the minimum required quantity (500g) for analysis, sending only 200g

Finally, the analysis report was not forwarded to the accused within the statutory period, violating the mandatory protections under Rule 9A

It held that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt due to procedural lapses, the exempt status of the 40g packets, and the invalidity of the sanction.

The High Court confirmed the trial court's judgment, dismissed the appeal, and cancelled the bail bonds of the respondents