Along with the companyplaint, the companyplainant filed Sanction Order No.
Aggrieved thereby, the companyplainant has filed this appeal by special leave.
It was alleged that there was misbranding of an article of food within the meaning of Section 2 ix k and as a companysequence there has been companytravention of the provisions of Section 7 2 punishable under Section 16 1 a i of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act hereinafter referred to as the Act .
The appeal came to be listed for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court but since there was difference of opinion between the two learned Judges, companystituting the Bench, on an interpretation of Section 20 of the Act, the matter was referred to a three Judge Bench.
That is how, the appeal is before us.
PFA2 130714/89/DHS dated 22.1.1990 issued by the Director, Health Services and a cash memo dated 20th December, 1989 issued by M s. S. Pottivelu Sons A 3 , evidencing sale of misbranded biscuits.
Dr. A.S. Anand, C.J. The appellant, Consumer Action Group, filed a companyplaint, being ST No.
3 M s. S. Pottivelu Sons, S.P. Central Stores, M.G. Road, Trivandrum on 20.12.1989 and those packets were found number labelled in accordance with the requirements of Rule 32 b of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 hereinafter referred to as the Rules .
55/ 90 in the Court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate alleging that the companyplainant had purchased two packets of Cadburys Butter Glucose Biscuits from Accused No.
P.C. in the High Court on 13th November, 1991, seeking quashing of the companyplaint and proceedings taken by the trial companyrt thereon which was allowed.
The respondent herein A 1 filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.
The learned trial companyrt took companynizance of the matter and issued process against A 1 to A 3.
