Distinction drawn between “expiry date” and “best before date”

[M/S. Amrut Distilleries Ltd. v. The Authorized Officer, FSSAI, 2015 SCC OnLine Mad 321, decided on 19.03.2015]

Madras High Court:

While discussing the issue that whether “expiry date” and “best before date” are similar as contended by the petitioner in the present case, the bench of Vaidyanathan, J. observed that there is a clear distinction between the two terms. While “expiry date” means the end of estimated period under any stated storage conditions, after which product probably will not have the quality and safety attributes normally expected by the consumers;

whereas “best before date” means the period during which the product shall remain fully marketable and shall retain specific qualities for which tacit or express claims have been made. The Court further added that Food Safety and Standards (Packaging and Labeling) Regulations, 2011 has clearly drawn the distinction between the terms.

The case before the Court was that one of the food items imported by the petitioner did not meet the labeling requirements of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 as the expiry date and the best before date for the product was same, whereas the Guidelines by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) state explicitly that the two dates should be different and clearly specified.

Counsel H.R Krishnan appearing for the petitioner argued that as per the requisites of Rule 2.2.9 of 2011 Regulations, only the date of manufacture and best before date is required to be furnished. K. Surendranath appearing for the respondents put forth that there is a distinction between “best before date” and “expiry date” and in view of this distinction FSSAI issued Guidelines dated 24.01.2013 directing that in case of wholesale packages which contain both “best before date” and “expiry date”, they should be different and not same.

The Court after a detailed analysis of the concerned provisions, observed that when there is a is clear distinction between “expiry date” and “best before date” then the petitioner cannot be allowed to mention a single date for both as it would mislead the consumers to think that the product will never lose its quality. The Court on perusing the petitioner’s contention of absence of a specific law prohibiting mentioning of a single date as the expiry date and best before date observed that, in presence of the FSSAI Guidelines such argument is misconceived.

Furthermore it was observed that there is no requirement to mention both '”best before date” and 'expiry date' and that a wholesale package can have either “best before date” or “expiry date”, but in case if the manufacturer intends to give both dates, then two dates should be different and clearly specified.

CALL FOR ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE ONLY IN EXCEPTIONAL CASES

The Hyderabad High Court has ruled that a court has the power to receive additional evidence only in exceptional circumstances and only when the court thinks that refusal to receive such evidence would result in failure of justice in a criminal revision case. Even the provision for receiving additional evidence in a criminal appeal has to be sparingly used by courts, the High Court has observed.

Justice R Kantha Rao passed this order while dismissing a revision petition filed by one Y Ram Naresh Naidu challenging the dismissal of his revision petition by the sessions judge of fast-track court at Narsapur in West Godavari district of Andhra Pradesh.

The sessions judge had held that the court of revision dealing with criminal revision petition can only examine the legality, propriety or correctness of the order sought to be revised and there is no specific provision in the CrPC permitting additional evidence in revision petitions and the revision petition was, therefore, not maintainable. The petitioner then approached the High Court challenging the lower court’s order.

As for the case details, the respondent wife filed a maintenance case before the judicial magistrate of first class, Palakol seeking maintenance of Rs 5,000 per month. The petitioner husband filed a counter stating that the respondent was not his wife and she had sufficient means to maintain herself and she had been working at a e-Seva centre earning Rs 3,500 a month besides having a building worth Rs 20 lakh.

After considering the entire evidence adduced on either side, the magistrate granted the woman maintenance at Rs 2,500 a month. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner husband filed a criminal revision petition before the additional sessions judge, Narsapur with a plea to issue summons to the bank manager concerned to produce the account particulars of the respondent wife. The sessions judge dismissed the petition by holding that there was no specific provision in the CrPC permitting additional evidence in revision petitions and, therefore, the revision petition was not maintainable. Then he moved the High Court challenging the said order.

Citing a judgment in Jaiprakash vs Rudra Prasad case, the counsel appearing for the revision petitioner husband said there is no provision in the code which prohibits the revisional court from receiving additional evidence.

After perusing the material on record and the judgments of various courts, Justice Kantha Rao observed that if the revisional court thinks that if additional evidence is necessary to do justice and also for proper adjudication, it can take additional evidence. In the instant case, both parties let in evidence in the maintenance case.

The revision petitioner husband contended that the respondent was not his wife but failed to prove the same and, thereby, the magistrate granted maintenance holding that the respondent was the wife of the revision petitioner. Later, the revision petitioner wanted to establish that the respondent had some means which would be revealed if the court examined her bank account, and some bank official was examined in that connection.

The judge is of the view that disallowing the petition filed by the revision petitioner seeking to adduce additional evidence is quite appropriate and the said order cannot be interfered with in the present criminal petition.

While dismissing the criminal revision petition, Justice Kantha Rao said, “Even if it is considered that the court of revision dealing with a criminal revision case has power to receive additional evidence, it must be under exceptional circumstances and only when the court thinks that refusal to receive such evidence would result in failure of justice. Even the provision for receiving additional evidence in a criminal appeal has to be sparingly used by the courts.

Therefore, receiving additional evidence in criminal revision case can be said to be very exceptional. The proceedings under Section 125 of CrPC are intended for affording speedy remedy to the wife to obtain maintenance from the husband. If in revision cases, the additional evidence is allowed to be adduced in a routine manner, it would cause undue hardship to the parties seeking maintenance and ultimately it defeats the very purpose underlying Section 125 of CrPC.”