Prosecution For First-Time Misbranding Under PFA Rules Cannot Be Initiated Without Prior Written Warning: Delhi High Court

"In case the contents of the sealed packets or container conform to the standard laid down under the PFA Rules, deficiency with regard to Rule 32 which pertains to the particulars of the labelling on the container or packet, was only a technical offence... the party effected may be given a written warning drawing his attention to Rule 32." Delhi High Court, in a significant ruling, held that criminal prosecution for a first-time violation of Rule 32(e) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, cannot be initiated without first issuing a written warning to the accused, provided the food contents conform to prescribed standards.

A bench of Dr. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that the state's failure to follow its own notified policy of 1985 renders such prosecutions an abuse of the process of law.

The case originated from a 1995 inspection of a restaurant where a sample of 'Hot and Spicy Marinade' was found to be lacking a batch number, lot number, or code number on its packaging. While the product's contents were found to be compliant with standards, the Public Analyst declared the article 'misbranded' due to the deficiency under Rule 32(e) of the PFA Rules. A complaint was filed under the PFA Act, 1954, against the manufacturer and its directors, which remained pending for over three decades, leading the petitioners to challenge the trial court’s refusal to discharge them.

The primary questions before the court were whether the prosecution could proceed for a first-time technical labelling deficiency without prior warning as per the 1985 policy, and whether the inclusion of Section 5 of the PFA Act (concerning the prohibition of importing misbranded food) stripped the petitioners of the protection offered by that policy.

Policy of Issuing Warning for Technical Labelling Deficiencies

The court meticulously examined the Government of NCT of Delhi’s Notification dated September 20, 1985. The court observed that this policy was specifically designed to distinguish between substantive adulteration and technical labelling lapses. Where food contents are found to be safe and standard-compliant, a failure to display specific labelling particulars under Rule 32 is treated merely as a technical offence, necessitating a written warning before any criminal proceedings can be initiated.

"The distinction made in the Notification is clear – where the defect concerns only the particulars required to be displayed on the label, and the contents of the food article conform to the prescribed standards, the violation is treated as a technical first-time violation for which a written warning is required."

Applicability of Warning Policy to Imported Food

Addressing the State's argument that Section 5 of the PFA Act (relating to imported food) overrides the warning policy, the Court held that Section 5 is triggered only when a food article is found 'misbranded' under Section 2(ix) of the Act. If the misbranding is solely due to a labelling deficiency, the importation status of the product does not negate the requirement for a warning. The Court clarified that the policy does not differentiate between domestic and imported products; its applicability hinges entirely on the nature of the offence.

"Once it is found that the primary violation is only a first-time violation of Rule 32(e) of PFA Rules, and that there is no allegation of adulteration, and that no prior written warning was issued, the mere addition of Section 5 of PFA Act cannot defeat the benefit of the policy."

Judicial Precedent and Final Order

The High Court drew support from the decision in M/s Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v. State, reaffirming that launching a prosecution in the teeth of a notified departmental policy amounts to an abuse of the process of law. The court concluded that since the petitioners were first-time offenders and there was no allegation of adulteration, the continuation of the complaint was unjustified. Consequently, the High Court quashed the complaint and all consequential proceedings against the petitioners, while noting that proceedings against other accused persons regarding distinct violations like Rule 50(7) would remain unaffected.

Date of Decision: 14 September 2026