TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (11) TMI 1833
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re given below :- 2.1 On 21.12.1996, S.S.Kushwaha, the Food Inspector Flying Squad Gwalior, visited the shop of the firm Ashok Kumar Madibhai Patel and Company (for short `the firm') situated at Jiyaji Chowk, Gwalior, which is the distributor, stockist and seller of the food products marketed by the Brooke Bond Lipton India Ltd in Gwalior region. He saw Manish Kumar selling from the shop the packages of "Top Ramen instant noodles" (for short "the noodles") to customers. He doubted the noodles are adulterated and misbranded. Thereupon, he introduced himself and made a detailed enquiry from him. He (Manish Kumar) told him that he is the cashier of the firm, and he also manages the business affairs of the firm at Gwalior. The firm is pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s Ltd" under an agreement dated 8.7.1996. The former stock transfers the noodles so produced to the latter which has appointed the Brooke Bond Lipton India Ltd, the sole selling agent of the noodles in the territory of India. M/s K.S Enterprises Bhopal is one of the distributors and stockists of the Brooke Bond Lipton India Ltd, which had sold the noodles to the firm in the wholesale. 2.3 S.S.Kushwah got particulars from the aforestated companies regarding the licenses and the nominations under the provisions of Sections 7(3) and 17 (2) of the PFA Act. Thereafter, he sought the prosecution sanction in terms of Section 20 of the PFA Act from the Local Health Authority, Gwalior, which has granted prosecution sanction vide order dated 20.3.1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rt in the matters of C.L.Yadav and another Vs. State of M.P and another, 2007 (1) FAC 357, and Vinay Hegde Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others, 2012 (2) FAC 375, respectively. After referring to the orders of the Calcutta High Court and the Bombay High Court, he further submitted that the Brooke Bond Lipton India Ltd is amalgamated with the Hindustan Lever Ltd, now known as Hindustan Unilever Ltd, with effective from 20.3.1997. He further submitted that the alleged offence committed by the Brooke Bond Lipton India Ltd in the year 1996 i.e. before its merger with the Hindustan Lever Ltd. He contended that as per the settled law, the criminal liability of the Brooke Bond Lipton India Ltd cannot be transferred to the Hindustan Lever Ltd on am....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g two questions fall for consideration before me : (I). W` the noodles can be held to be misbranded because of the positive test of MSG? 7. To answer the first question, Rule 42 (S) of the Rules is reproduced below : "Every advertisement for and/or a package of food containing added Monosodium Glutamate, shall carry following declaration namely : This package of .......(name of the food) contains added MONOSODIUM GULTAMATE : [NOT RECOMMENDED FOR INFANT BELOW-12 MONTHS]" As per language of the rule, in my considered view the word "added" has great significance. The aforestated declaration is required only when MSG is added from outside source in a particular food product and such declaration is not required when MSG is present in the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed to the product during its manufacture or was naturally present in the product. This can however be checked through inspection of the manufacturing premises. (underlined by me). 3. To prevent, both, avoidable harassment/prosecution of Food Business Operators (FBOs) as well as to ensure that consumers are facilitated to exercise informed choices in respect of what they eat, proceedings may be launched against FBOs only when the labels state "No MSG" or "No added MSG" and MSG is actually found in the impugned foodstuff. Commissioners of Food Safety are advised that specific enforcement/prosecution may not be launched against the manufacturers of Noodles/Pasta on account of presence of MSG/Glutamic Acid unless, it is ascertained by the d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to have been committed may not be very serious in nature and the penalties/punishments prescribed for such offences are also not substantial. The pendency of such cases for a long time not only burdens the judicial system, but also diverts the scarce resources of the government in pursuing these matters rather than deploying them in effective implementation of the provisions of the FSS Act to ensure safe and wholesome food for the consumers. 2. In the view of the above, Commissioners of Food Safety of all States/UTs may like to examine all pending cases against Food Business Operators under provisions of various enactments & orders repealed on enactment of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and take a view on withdrawal of the same, if ....