Chandigarh administration loses 25-year-long battle over misbranding of biscuit packets

Background of the case

The case dates back to December 22, 2000, when then Food Inspector Sukhwinder Singh intercepted a three-wheeler carrying 20 sealed packs of Mrs Bector’s Cremica premium sandwich bread. A sample was taken in the presence of witness Pachnarain and sent for testing. The public analyst’s report indicated that the product was misbranded as it did not mention the ‘best before’ date, violating Rule 32 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration (PFA) Rules, 1955.

Prashad was subsequently charged but the Chief Judicial Magistrate acquitted him in 2008, leading to an appeal by the UT administration.

Court’s reasoning for upholding acquittal

The high court found that a major flaw in the prosecution’s case was the lack of proper training of the food inspector who took the sample. Justice Bedi highlighted that Chandigarh’s Food Health Authority was not authorised to provide the mandatory three-month training required under Rule 8 of the PFA Rules. He cited a 1982 notification from the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, which explicitly excluded Chandigarh from the list of approved training centres.

Further, the court noted that a fresh notification in 2003 reappointed food inspectors only after they had undergone proper training. “This endorses the fact that the earlier notification was illegally issued,” Justice Bedi remarked.

Additionally, the court clarified that a food inspector taking a sample for analysis must follow strict legal procedures, which differ from the rights of a private purchaser who may get a product tested for personal reasons. “A food inspector purchases a food article only for the purpose of analysis, following legal procedures. The two cannot be equated,” the judgment stated.

Final ruling

Dismissing the appeal, the court concluded that the accused’s acquittal was justified due to the prosecution’s failure to establish that the food inspector had the requisite qualifications. “I find no reason to interfere with the well-reasoned judgment of the Chief Judicial Magistrate,” Justice Bedi ruled.