http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.)  559 of 2008

PETITIONER: M/s Parakh Foods Ltd

RESPONDENT: State of A.P. & Anr

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 27/03/2008

BENCH: P.P. NAOLEKAR & LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T REPORTABLE

   CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 559 OF 2008 [arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.5972 of 2007]

P.P. NAOLEKAR,J.

1.              Leave granted. 2.              This appeal arises from the judgment and order of the  Andhra Pradesh High Court whereby the High Court has held that  from the evidence on record the article of food in question, is  soyabean oil.  The label contains pictures of vegetables like cabbage,  carrot, brinjal, capsicum, cauliflower, tomato and onions which are in  no way connected with soyabean oil.  Although the prosecution of the  appellant is quashed, a clear case of misbranding is made out.   

3.              The relevant facts of the case are that the appellant M/s  Parakh Foods Ltd. (now Cargill Foods India Limited) is a company  registered under the Companies Act, 1956.  The appellant is engaged  in manufacture and sale of "Shaktimaan Refined Soyabean Oil", a  food product covered under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act,  1954 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and it sells and markets the  said product throughout the country.  On 23.12.2003, respondent   No.2, the Food Inspector, District Mahboob Nagar, Andhra Pradesh  visited the shop of M/s Md. Dilawar General & Oil Shop No.2-10-4,  Old Gunj, Mahboob Nagar, being accused No.1 \026 vendor in the  complaint.  Respondent No.2 found a carton containing 20 packets of  "Shaktimaan Refined Soyabean Oil" kept for sale for human  consumption.  Respondent No.2 suspected the quality of oil to be  adulterated and purchased three packets each containing 1litre oil and  obtained cash receipt from the vendor.  Thereafter, the packets were  sent to the Public Analyst, State Food Laboratory, Nacharam,  Hyderabad. The Public Analyst furnished his report on 31.01.2004  and opined that the label contains pictures of vegetables like cabbage,  carrot, brinjal, capsicum, cauliflower, tomato and onions, which are in  no way connected with soyabean oil and said that the pictures of  vegetables on the label is an exaggeration of the quality of the product  and hence violates  Rule 37 D of the Prevention of  Food Adulteration  Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the "PFA Rules") and,  therefore, is misbranded.   4.              Accordingly, the Food Inspector filed a complaint under  the provisions of the Act before the Magistrate.  A case was registered  under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act for alleged contravention of  Section 2(ix)(k) and under Section 7(ii) of the Act read with Rule 37  D of the PFA Rules.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

5.              The prosecution initiated against the appellant was  challenged by filing a petition under Section 482 of the Code of  Criminal Procedure, 1973.  The High Court decided the criminal  proceedings on 20.07.2007.  The High Court came to the conclusion  that the vendor did not produce any warranty, thus the manufacturer  or the dealer cannot be prosecuted.  When there is no allegation in the  complaint alleging that the vendor produced any warranty or bill with  regard to the purchase of the food item in question from accused No.2,  that is the appellant  herein, merely basing on the label declaration the

appellant cannot be prosecuted.  However, the order of quashing will  not preclude the concerned Magistrate in arraying the appellant as an  accused during the trial, if there is any offence.   6.              The High Court has also observed  that it is clear that the  article of food in question was misbranded since none of the pictures  contained on the label has nothing to do with the article of food in  question.  Therefore, it is held to be a clear case of violation of Rule  37 D of the PFA Rules.  Aggrieved by these findings, the present  appeal is filed. 7.              It is contended by Shri Ashok H. Desai, learned senior  counsel for the appellant that the article of food can be considered to  be misbranded only when false claims are made with respect to such  article of food upon the label or otherwise and  there is no statutory  prohibition under the Act in printing pictures of vegetables on the  label of article of food on which the said article of food may be used  in the preparation / cooking of such vegetables.  Whereas it is  submitted by the learned counsel for the State that the pictures on the  brand does not relate to the article which the  appellant   manufactures  and sells and, therefore, it would fall within the violation of Rule 37 D  of the PFA Rules as misbranded.  The relevant provision reads as  under :- RULE 37D - "Labelling of edible oils and fats \026 The  package, label or the advertisement of edible oils and fats  shall not use the expressions "Super-Refined", "Extra- Refined", "Micro-Refined", "Double-Refined", "Ultra- Refined", "Anti-Cholesterol", "Cholesterol-Fighter",  "Soothing to Heart", "Cholesterol-Friendly", "Saturated  Fat Free" or such other expressions which are an  exaggeration of the quality of the product."

8.              The provision for labeling of edible oils and fats is under  Rule 37 D of the PFA Rules  which specifies labeling of edible oils  and fats.  The Rule clearly states that package / labeling or  advertisement of edible oils and fats shall not use the expressions such  as (i) super-refined; (ii) extra-refined; (iii) micro-refined; (iv) double- refined; (v) ultra-refined; (vi) anti-cholesterol; (vii) cholesterol  fighter; (viii) soothing to heart; (ix) cholesterol friendly;  (x) saturated  fat free, etc.  It would be pertinent to say that all these expressions  from (i) to (x) are prohibited because if they are mentioned on the  labeling of the product they will tend to exaggerate the quality of the  product.  The Rule further states that all such other expression are also  prohibited which tend to exaggerate the quality of the product.  For   the purposes of interpretation of this Rule  the principle of ejusdem  generis  can be applied; ejusdem generis  is a latin expression which  means "of the same kind" , for example where a law lists specific  classes of persons or things and then refers to them in general, the  general statements only apply to the same kind of persons or things  specifically listed.  In other words, it means words of similar class.   According to Black’s Law Dictionary (8th Edn. 2004),  the principle of  ejusdem generis  is where general words follow an enumeration of  persons or things, by words of a particular and specific meaning, such  general words are not to be construed in their widest extent, but are to  be held as applying only to persons or things of the same kind or class  as those specifically mentioned.  It is a cannon of statutory

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

construction that where general words follow the enumeration of  particular classes of things, the general words will be construed as  applying only to things of the same general class as those enumerated. 9.              Keeping the above principle in mind, the words "such  other" as used in Rule 37 D is to be read along with the subject matter  in which they have been used.  The residuary clause of the rule has to  be read in light of the ten prohibited expressions, and it becomes clear  that what is prohibited are only the expressions which are an  exaggeration of the quality of the product. 10.             In the present case, it is true that the appellant has used  pictures of vegetables on the label of the product which is  refined  soyabean oil, which according to the appellant is to depict the   purpose for which the oil can be used, viz., preparation of the  vegetables depicted thereon.  Unless the picture depicted on a label of  edible oils and fats exaggerates the quality of the product, it would not  fall within the mischief of Rule 37 D.  In the present case, the  vegetables shown on the label of  soyabean oil does not in any way  indicate that the quality of soyabean oil is ’super-refined’, ’extra- refined’, ’micro-refined’, ’double-refined’, ’ultra-refined’, ’anti- cholesterol’, ’cholesterol fighter’, ’soothing to heart’, ’cholesterol  friendly’, ’saturated fat free’ etc., nor it indicates the exaggeration  towards the quality of the product to come within the mischief of Rule  37D of the PFA Rules.  In our opinion the High Court has committed   a serious error in arriving at a finding that the article of food  (soyabean oil) was misbranded since the picture contained on the label  has nothing to do with the article of food in question, completely  ignoring the fact that the article of food can be used for cooking the  vegetables shown in the picture which cannot be said to be  exaggerating the quality of the food in question. 11.             For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is allowed and the  impugned finding of the High Court as regards misbranding and  violation of Rule 37D of the PFA Rules is set aside.