2020 INSC 0468
NON­REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.     562            OF 2020
(Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 2942 of 2020)
RAGHAV GUPTA             ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND ANOTHER         ...RESPONDENT(S)
JUDGMENT
NAVIN SINHA, J.
Leave granted.
2. The appellant questions his prosecution  under Rule 32(e) of
the   Prevention   of   Food   Adulteration   Rules,   1955   (hereinafter
called   as   “the   Rules”)   framed   under   the   Prevention   of   Food
Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short “the Act”).
3. We   have   heard   learned   counsel   for   the   parties   at   length.
Though   several   grounds   have   been   urged   to   challenge   the
prosecution,   we   are   satisfied   that   the   appeal   can   be   disposed   of
on   a   single   undisputed   ground.     The   facts   shall   therefore   be
1

stated   with   brevity   only   to   the   extent   necessary   for   purposes   of
the present order.
4. The   Food   Inspector   purchased   sealed   samples   of   Snapple
Juice Drink on 03.05.2011 for analysis.  The report of the Public
Analyst   dated   30.05.2011,   held   that   the   sample   confirmed   to
standards   but   was   misbranded   being   in   violation   of   Rule   32(e),
lacking   in   necessary   declaration   of   lot/batch   numbers.     The
appellant   was   stated   to   be   one   of   the   Directors   of   M/s.   V   &   V
Beverages   Pvt.   Ltd.   which   imported   the   drink   from   foreign
manufacturer   Schweppes   International   Rye   Brook   duly   cleared
by the Customs department.
5. A   complaint   case   no.   4   of   2012   was   lodged   by   the   Food
Inspector   on   basis   of   the   report   dated   30.05.2011.   Notices   were
issued   to   the   appellant   under   Section   251   of   the   Criminal
Procedure   Code   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   ‘the   Code’).   The
appellant   preferred   an   application   for   discharge   under   Section
294 of the Code read with Section 192 of the Act inter alia on the
ground   that   the   product   had   the   necessary   barcode   on   it   and
which contained all the relevant information as required by Rule
2

32(e)  such   as  batch  no./code  no./lot  no.  The  application  having
been   rejected,   the   appellant   raised   the   same   ground   before   the
High Court which also failed to consider the same. 
6. Ms. Geeta Luthra, learned senior  counsel appearing for  the
appellant, submitted before us and which could not be countered
by Shri Jayant K. Sud, learned Addl. Solicitor General appearing
for   the   respondent,   that   the   necessary   information   as   required
under Rule 32(e) was available in the barcode which could all be
revealed by a barcode scanner.
7. That   the   barcode   was   available   on   the   sample   is   not   in
dispute.   In   view   of   the   fact   that   the   relevant   information   under
Rule   32(e)   with   regard   to   the   lot/code/batch   identification   to
facilitate it being traced to the manufacturer are available in the
barcode and which can be decoded by a barcode scanner, we are
of   the   considered   opinion   that   no   useful   purpose   is   going   to   be
served by allowing the present prosecution to continue and it will
be   an   abuse   of   the   process   of   law,   causing   sheer   waste   of   time,
causing   unnecessary   harassment   to   the   appellant,   if   the
prosecution is allowed to continue. 
3

8. We therefore allow the appeal and quash the prosecution of
the appellant in CC No. 04 of 2012 pending before the ACMM­2,
Patiala House Court, New Delhi.  The appeal is allowed.  
…………...................J.
[R.F. NARIMAN]
…………...................J.
[NAVIN SINHA]
…………...................J.
[INDIRA BANERJEE]
NEW DELHI
SEPTEMBER 04, 2020
4