Misbranding complaint requires a clear factual foundation in the sale document and valid sanction against each accused.

A misbranding prosecution under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 was said to fail because the supporting cash memo described only "biscuits" and did not identify the brand name, leaving the factual foundation for the allegation incomplete. The text also notes that sanction for prosecution was granted only against one accused, with no sanction for the others. On that reasoning, the complaint did not disclose a sufficient basis for cognizance or issuance of process against all accused persons, and proceedings were quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the complaint and the criminal proceedings were sustainable when the cash memo did not identify the brand name of the biscuits alleged to be misbranded and when sanction for prosecution was not granted against all accused persons.

Analysis: The complaint alleged misbranding on the basis of purchase of biscuits said to be improperly labelled under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, but the supporting cash memo only recorded a sale of "biscuits" and did not mention the brand name. On that basis, the factual foundation necessary to sustain an allegation of misbranding was absent. The sanction order authorised prosecution only of one accused, and no sanction was granted for the other accused persons. In those circumstances, the trial court ought not to have taken cognizance or issued process, since the complaint itself did not disclose a proper factual basis for proceeding further.

Conclusion: The complaint and proceedings were rightly quashed, and the appeal was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A criminal complaint alleging misbranding must disclose a clear factual foundation in the supporting sale document, and proceedings cannot be sustained where the required sanction for prosecution is absent or where cognizance is taken without such foundational facts.

---