Misbranding and amalgamation liability turn on proof of added MSG and the non-transfer of pre-merger criminal liability.

Added monosodium glutamate must be affirmatively shown to have been introduced from an outside source before a food product can be treated as misbranded under the relevant declaration rule; a positive laboratory result alone is insufficient if it does not establish deliberate addition during manufacture. The material also confirms that, after amalgamation, criminal liability for an alleged pre-merger offence of the transferor company cannot be fastened on the transferee company merely because the merger occurred. On the stated reasoning, the complaint and further proceedings against the petitioner were quashed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the noodles could be treated as misbranded merely because the sample tested positive for monosodium glutamate, and (ii) whether criminal proceedings could continue against the transferee company for an alleged offence committed by the transferor company before amalgamation.

Issue (i): Whether the noodles could be treated as misbranded merely because the sample tested positive for monosodium glutamate.

Analysis: Rule 42(S) required a declaration only where a food package contained added monosodium glutamate. The decisive expression was "added", which meant addition from an outside source. A positive test for MSG, without a definite finding that it had been deliberately added during manufacture, was insufficient to establish misbranding. The absence of a report clarifying whether MSG was added or was naturally present meant that prosecution could not rest merely on the analytical result.

Conclusion: The sample could not be treated as misbranded only on the basis of a positive MSG test, in the absence of proof that MSG was added from outside source.

Issue (ii): Whether criminal proceedings could continue against the transferee company for an alleged offence committed by the transferor company before amalgamation.

Analysis: The offence was alleged to have occurred before the amalgamation. Once the transferor company merged, it ceased to exist, and its criminal liability could not be transferred or fastened on the transferee company merely because of the amalgamation. Since the alleged act preceded the merger, the transferee company could not be prosecuted for that offence.

Conclusion: The transferee company could not be prosecuted for the alleged offence committed by the transferor company before amalgamation.

Final Conclusion: The complaint and all subsequent proceedings were quashed insofar as they related to the petitioner, as neither the misbranding theory on the available material nor the amalgamation-based prosecution could sustain the case against it.

Ratio Decidendi: A food product is not misbranded under the relevant declaration rule unless added monosodium glutamate is affirmatively shown to have been introduced from outside source, and criminal liability of an amalgamating company for a pre-merger offence cannot be fastened on the transferee company after amalgamation.

---