Full Bench of SC held : That since the relevant information under Rule 32(e) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 framed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, with regard to the lot/code/batch identification to facilitate it being traced to the manufacturer are available in the barcode and which can be decoded by a barcode scanner, no useful purpose is going to be served by allowing the present prosecution to continue and it will be an abuse of the process of law, causing sheer waste of time, causing unnecessary harassment to the appellant, if the prosecution is allowed to continue.

 

NAME		MOBILE NO.	E-MAIL I’D
RANJEET KUMAR		8383098478, 9667769795	rk@courtkutchehry.com
JAI THAKUR		8130703334, 9355723300	jai.thakur@courtkutchehry.com
RAJEEV RANJAN		9334553249	rajiv.ranjan@courtkutchehry.com
ASHOK MISHRA		9718327746	sales@courtkutchehry.com
RAVI KUMAR			ravi.singh@courtkutchehry.com

Raghav Gupta Vs. State(NCT Of Delhi) And Another, (2020) 09 SC CK 0010

Full Bench of SC held :That since the relevant information under Rule 32(e) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 framed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act,1954, with regard to the lot/code/batch identification to facilitate it beingtraced to the manufacturer are available in the bar code and which can be decoded by a barcode scanner, no useful purpose is going to be served by allowing the present prosecution to continue and it will be an abuse of the process of law, causing sheer waste of time, causing unnecessary harassment to the appellant, if the prosecution is allowed to continue.