November 2018

Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, R. 32 & 50–Misbranded Article- Labeling of product—As per report of public analyst, year of manufacturing is not legible and also batch No./Lot No./Code No. is not given on the label thus the product is misbranded-Held, the word ‘or’ has been used in sub-clause (d) of Clause 8 between the words ‘code number indicating the lot* and ‘the date of manufacture of such food product’-Meaning thereby if any one of them is mentioned, the condition of the clause stands fulfilled—Petitioner is retailer—Manufacturer has already been acquitted as article was adulterated and labeling was in conformity with rules—Complaint against petitioner stands dismissed.      

By | November 25th, 2018|Food Adulteration Act|

Comments Off on Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, R. 32 & 50–Misbranded Article- Labeling of product—As per report of public analyst, year of manufacturing is not legible and also batch No./Lot No./Code No. is not given on the label thus the product is misbranded-Held, the word ‘or’ has been used in sub-clause (d) of Clause 8 between the words ‘code number indicating the lot* and ‘the date of manufacture of such food product’-Meaning thereby if any one of them is mentioned, the condition of the clause stands fulfilled—Petitioner is retailer—Manufacturer has already been acquitted as article was adulterated and labeling was in conformity with rules—Complaint against petitioner stands dismissed.      

February 2018