I sold a food product without the ISI mark. The food inspector raided my shop and seized that food item (Gelatine) and send it to the concerned laboratory. However, the product was pure but sold without having the ISI mark. Laboratory report proves that the sample contains no adulteration. Consequently, the test report was negative. The food inspector lodged FIR against me under Rule 48C of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954. I want to know what would be the consequence of this criminal case? Whether I have committed any offence?
You have been prosecuted for the offence of misbranding under the prevention of Food Adulteration Act. You sold that food item without having the ISI mark; therefore, the food inspector has filed that FIR. ISI mark is compulsory for the sale of gelatin.
As far as rule 48c is concerned, this rule has omitted. Therefore, the proceeding initiated under Rule 48 C is null and void. The food item was pure; thus, the test report came in your favour. If the report were positive and adulterated, then the nature of proceeding would be different. At this juncture, the sole basis of the FIR is the act of misbranding under section 48 C. Rule 48 C of The prevention of Food Adulteration Act Rules has repealed in the year 2006.
Section 6 of the general clauses act enumerates that a proceeding initiated before repealing of any statute or provision is applicable as the said still in force. But the provision of section 6 does not apply in respect of rules made under the Act Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd. Vs Union of India AIR 2000 SC 811. Hence the proceeding initiated against you is null and void. You should file a petition before the high court for quashing of this criminal proceeding. File a petition before the High Court under section 482 of the code of criminal procedure because no offence is made out against you.