In Brief
Raghav Gupta was prosecuted for misbranding a food product under Rule 32(e) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, because the drink label lacked certain required declarations. The Food Inspector's own analysis confirmed the product met safety standards. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that since the required information was available through barcode scanning, continuing prosecution would serve no useful purpose and would amount to abuse of process, causing unnecessary harassment and judicial waste.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.