No Prosecution For First-Time Misbranding Without Prior Written Warning: Delhi HC Quashes 1995 Case Against Kancor Ingredients
The Court held that mere invocation of Section 5 of PFA Act for imported food cannot defeat benefit of 1985 warning policy.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against Kancor Ingredients Ltd. and its directors arising out of a 1996 complaint alleging misbranding of a "Hot and Spicy Marinade" supplied to a PepsiCo-run restaurant in New Friends Colony, holding that prosecution for a first-time labelling violation could not have been launched without a prior written warning as mandated by a 1985 Delhi Government notification.
The Court further noted that the prosecution's attempt to sidestep the warning policy merely because the complaint also invoked Section 5 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, concerning import of misbranded food, was untenable, since the alleged misbranding traced back solely to the same labelling defect under Rule 32(e) of the PFA Rules, and the food article was neither alleged nor found to be adulterated.
A Single Judge Bench of Dr. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed, “…the prosecution of the petitioners for the alleged violation of Rule 32(e), and for the consequential violation of Section 5 of the PFA Act, could not have been initiated without first complying with the requirement of issuing a written warning as contemplated by the Notification dated 20.09.1985. Since admittedly no such warning was issued, and since the present case concerns only a first-time violation relating to labelling, the continuation of the prosecution against the petitioners for the said violations would be contrary to the notified policy”.
“…once it is found that the primary violation is only a first-time violation of Rule 32(e) of PFA Rules, and that there is no allegation of adulteration, and that no prior written warning was issued, the mere addition of Section 5 of PFA Act cannot defeat the benefit of the policy contained in the Notification dated 20.09.1985”, the Bench said.
Senior Advocate Pramod Kumar Dubey appeared for the petitioner and Digam Singh Dagar, APP appeared for the respondent.
The case arose out of a sample of "Hot and Spicy Marinade" lifted on October 31, 1995 by a Food Inspector from the Assistant Restaurant Manager of M/s Pepsico Restaurant International (India) Pvt. Ltd. The sample, comprising sealed packets bearing identical labels but lacking any batch, code or lot number, was found by the Public Analyst to be misbranded under Rules 32(e) and (f) of the PFA Rules.
The marinade had been supplied by M/s Kancor Flavours and Extracts Limited, which had allegedly imported it from a Singapore-based manufacturer despite such import being prohibited under Section 5 of the PFA Act. A complaint was accordingly filed against eleven accused, including the restaurant staff, PepsiCo's restaurant arm, and Kancor along with its directors and general manager, the latter group being petitioners before the High Court.
Summons were issued in 1996, followed by prolonged delays on account of difficulties in serving certain US-based accused. The petitioners' earlier quashing petition was permitted to be withdrawn in 2012 with liberty to raise all pleas before the Trial Court at the stage of framing of notice. The Trial Court, however, dismissed their discharge applications by order dated May 25, 2012, holding it lacked power to discharge them at that stage, prompting the present petition under Section 482 CrPC.
The Court found that the allegation against the petitioners was confined to the absence of a batch or lot number under Rule 32(e), with no finding of adulteration or substandard content.
The Court rejected the State's argument that invocation of Section 5 took the case outside the Notification's scope, holding that Section 5 was attracted only as a consequence of the same labelling defect and could not independently defeat the warning-policy benefit.
Accordingly, it quashed the complaint and consequential proceedings against the petitioners insofar as they related to the alleged violation of Rule 32(e) and Section 5 of the PFA Act, while clarifying that proceedings concerning Rule 50(7) against the restaurant staff and PepsiCo's restaurant arm would continue in accordance with law. The petition was allowed to this extent.
Cause Title: Kancor Ingredients Ltd. & Ors. v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:7801)
Appearances:
Petitioners: Senior Advocate Pramod Kumar Dubey, Puneet Relan, Ramchandurni B Siddhartha, Khushi Arora and Shivangi Mishra, Advocates.
Respondent: Digam Singh Dagar, APP.