Case Note & Summary
The State of Goa, through Food Inspector Smt. Iva Fernandes, filed an appeal against the acquittal of the respondents, Selvom Athisavem and Manuel Athisavem, who were accused of misbranding roasted peanuts under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. On 7 June 2004, the Food Inspector visited the accused's establishment, disclosed her identity, and purchased three sealed packets of roasted peanuts (500g each) along with some 'Zilebis'. The packets bore a label stating 'M/s. Mani Mark Sweets, Carajwada, Mapusa, Goa. Roasted groundnut 500gms. Rs.25/- Best before 1 month. Date of Pack. 7 JUN, 2004.' The samples were seized under panchanama, and one part was sent to the Public Analyst, who reported on 6 July 2004 that the sample contained synthetic food colour 'Sunset Yellow', making it adulterated. The Public Analyst also noted that the label did not bear the symbol for vegetarian food. The prosecution initially proceeded on both adulteration and misbranding, but the adulteration charge was decided earlier in Criminal Appeal No.39/2007 on 22 October 2008, leaving only the misbranding charge for trial. The trial court acquitted the accused on 31 March 2009, holding that the prosecution failed to prove misbranding. The State appealed. The High Court examined the evidence, including the label and the Public Analyst's report, and found that the label did not disclose the presence of synthetic food colour as required by Rule 32 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. The court held that this omission constituted misbranding under Section 2(ix)(k) of the Act. The court rejected the trial court's reasoning that the label was not required to list ingredients because the product was a 'proprietary food' or that the colour was not added but naturally present. The court noted that the Public Analyst's report clearly stated the presence of synthetic colour, and the label's failure to declare it violated the rules. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the acquittal, and convicted the accused for misbranding. The respondents were sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 each, in default simple imprisonment for one month. The court also directed the trial court to recover the fine.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Food Adulteration - Misbranding - Labeling Requirements - Section 2(ix)(k), Section 7(ii), Section 16(1)(a)(i) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 r/w Rule 32 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 - The label on the sealed packet of roasted peanuts did not disclose the presence of synthetic food colour 'Sunset Yellow' as required by Rule 32 - The court held that the omission rendered the food misbranded, and the trial court's acquittal was erroneous - The appeal was allowed and the accused were convicted for misbranding (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the accused were guilty of misbranding roasted peanuts by failing to declare the presence of synthetic food colour 'Sunset Yellow' on the label, and whether the trial court erred in acquitting them.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The judgment/order dated 31/03/2009 of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mapusa, is set aside. The respondents are convicted for misbranding under Section 16(1)(a)(i) r/w Section 7(ii) r/w Section 2(ix)(k) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 r/w Rule 32 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. Each respondent is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000, in default simple imprisonment for one month. The trial court is directed to recover the fine.
Law Points
- Misbranding
- Labeling requirements
- Synthetic food colour disclosure
- Prevention of Food Adulteration Act
- 1954
- Rule 32
- Section 2(ix)(k)
- Section 7(ii)
- Section 16(1)(a)(i)
