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

Citation: [2008] 5 S.C.R. 531 · Decided: 27-03-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.P. NAOLEKAR · Disposal: Case Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[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, 
j 
1955. The Food Inspector filed a complaint. A case was 
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) 
0 anti-cholesterol; (vii) cholesterol fighter; (viii) soothing to 
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 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.