M/S PARAKH FOODS LTD.versusSTATE OF A.P. & ANR.

                                    [2008] 5 S.C.R. 531


      --r'.                    MIS PARAKH FOODS LTD.                            A
                                             v.
                                  STATE OF A.P. & ANR.
                            (Criminal Appeal No. 559 of 2008)
                                    MARCH 27, 2008
                                                                                B
     ....       (P.P. NAOLEKAR & LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.)

                    Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 - Rule 37
               D - Labeling of edible oils and fats - Case of misbranding
               against manufacturer and seller of 'refined soyabean oil' -      c
               Based on report of public analyst that pictures of vegetables
               on label of 'refined soyabean oil' exaggeration of quality of
               product - Held: Case of misbranding and violation of Rule 37
               D not made out - Pictures of vegetables on label was to depict
               that article of food could be used for cooking the vegetables
                                                                              D
               shown in the picture' - Vegetables shown does not indicate
       ' '
       _.)..
               the quality of soyabean oil nor exaggeration towards quality
               of product"- Thus, order of High Court set aside - Prevention
               of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
                    Interpretation of Statutes - Principle of ejusdem generis   E
               - Application of, for interpretation of Rule 37 D of the
'"
               Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955.
                    Appellant is engaged in manufacture and sale of
               'Refined Soya bean Oil'. The respondent No.2-Food
               Inspector suspected the quality of oil to be adulterated F
               and purchased three packets of oil from the vendor. On
      ~\       investigation, the Public Analyst held that the label
               contained pictures of vegetables like cabbage, carrot,
               brinjal, capsicum, cauliflower, tomato and onions, were
               in no way connected with soyabean oil and was an G
               exaggeration of the quality of the product, hence violative
               of Rule 37 D of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules,
               1955. The Food Inspector filed a complaint. A case was
       j       registered under s. 16(1 )(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food
                                           531                             H
'-
    532      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2008] 5 S.C.R.


A Adulteration Act, 1954 for alleged contravention of s.                  ,._
  2(ix)(k) and under s. 7(ii) of the Act read with Rule 37 D of
  the Rules. Appellant filed petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C.
  challenging the prosecution. High Court though quashed
  the prosecution of the appellant but made out a case of
B misbranding. Hence the present appeal.
          Allowing the appeal, the Court                                  .._ •
         HELD: 1.1 The provision for labeling of edible oils
  and fats is under Rule 37 D of the Prevention of Food
c Adulteration Rules, 1955 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
0
  heart; (ix) cholesterol friendly; (x) saturated fat free, etc.
  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
E prohibited which tend to exaggerate the quality of the
  product. For the purposes of interpretation of the 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
F persons or things and then refers to them in general, the
  general statements only apply to the same kind pf persons
  or things specifically listed. In other words, it means words
  of similar class. (Para 8) [536-8-H]
G      1.2 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
H expressions which are an exaggeration of the quality of
           M/S PARAKH FOODS LTD. v. STATE OF A.P. & ANR.            533

  \•
          the product. (Para 9) [537-B,C]                                 A
               Black's Law Dictionary 8th Edn. 2004 - referred to.
               2. In the instant case, 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 B
          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. The vegetables shown on the label of              c
          soyabean oil does not in any way indicate that the quality
          of soya bean 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., n.or it indicates the
          exaggeration towards the quality of the product to come
          within the mischief of Rule 370 of the PFA Rules. The High
                                                                           D


          Court 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 E
          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 fqod in question. The
          finding of the High Court as regards misbranding and
          violation of Rule 370 of the PFA Rules is set aside. F
~)r       (Paras 10 and 11) [537-C, D, E, F, G]
              CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal
          Appeal No. 559 OF 2008
               From the Judgment ~nd order dated 201712007 of the High G
          Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Crl. P.
          No. 2841/2007           ..
 I
-~
               Ashok H. Desai, Mis. Amit Dhir:igra and Aman Leekha (for
          M/s. Dua Associates) for the App,ellant.
                                                                          H
    534       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2008] 5 S.C.R.


A         D. Bharathi Reddy for the Respondents.
                                                                         .,..
          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
          P.P. NAOLEKAR, J. 1. Leave granted.
        2. This appeal arises from the judgment and order of the
B 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.
c 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 Mis
    Parakh Foods Ltd. (now Cargill Foods India Limited) is a
    company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. The
D
    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
E   Food Inspector, District Mahboob Nagar, Andhra Pradesh
    visited the shop of Mis Md. Dilawar General & Oil Shop No.2-
    10-4, Old Gunj, Mahboob Nagar, being accused No.1 - vendor
    in the complaint. Respondent No.2 found a carton containing
    20 packets of "Shaktimaan Refined Soya bean Oil" kept for sale
F   for human consumption. Respondent No.2 suspected the quality
    of oil to be adulterated and purchased three packets each              ;a_
    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
G   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
H   product and hence violates Rule 37 D of the Prevention of Food
               MIS PARAKH FOODS LTD. v. STATE OF AP. & ANR.               535
                            [P.P. NAOLEKAR, J.]

      '1'      Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the "PFA     A
             - 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 ?(ii) of the   B
     , .A     Act read with Rule 37 D of the PFA Rules.
                    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 c
              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 vvith regard to the purchase of the
              food item in question from accused No.2, that is the appellant D
       •      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 durin~ the trial, if there is any offence.
                   6. The High Court has also observed that it is clear that E
              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.                       F
                   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 G
             pictures of vegetables on the label of article of food on which
             the said article of food may be used in the preparation I 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 H



_,
    536       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2008] 5 S.C.R.


A   and, therefore, it would fall within the violation of Rule 370 of the
    PFA Rules as misbranded. The relevant provision reads as
    under:-

          RULE 370 - "Labelling of edible oils and fats - The
          package, label or the advertisement of edible oils and
B         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
c         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 I labeling or
    advertisement of edible oils and fats shall not use the
0
    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
E if they are mentioned on the labeling of the product they will
    tend to exaggerate the quality of the product. The Rllle 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
F 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
G similar class. According to Black's Law Dictionary (8 1h 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
H only to persons or things of the same kind or class as those
          M/S PARAKH FOODS LTD. v. STATE OF AP. & ANR.                  537
                       [PP. NAOLEKAR, J.]

         specifically mentioned. It is a cannon of statutory construction     A
         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 B
         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 ex-
         pressions which are an exaggeration of the quality of the product. C
                 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 D
         on a label of edible oils and fats exaggerates the quality of the
         product, it would not fall within the mischief of Rule 37 0. 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- E
         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 370 of the PFA Rules. In our
         opinion the High Court has committed a serious error in arriving F
         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 G
         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 370 of the PFA Rules is set aside.
         N.J.                                            Appeal allowed.      H