Back
V. SUJATHA
Sanjeev Uppal – Appellant
Versus
State Of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
ORDER :
V.Sujatha, J.
This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short “Cr.P.C.”) to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.830 of 2016 on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Tadepalligudem, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 3 (1) (zz) (ix) (xi), 26 (2) (i) of the Food Safety and Standards (Food Products and Food Additives) Regulations, 2011 and punishable under Section 59 (i) of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (for short “FSS Act”).
2. Petitioner herein is accused No.2. Respondent No.2, Food Safety Officer is the complainant. Respondent No.2 lodged complaint alleging that on 28.12.2015, he visited the retail shop of the accused No.1 and found 10 packets of sealed Heritage Basmati Rice in wooden shelf and on suspicion that the rice was substandard/unsafe, he purchased 4 packets of the rice and paid Rs.4000/- towards its cost. The complaint further states that respondent No.2 herein issued a notice in form VA under Rule 2.4.1(3) by disclosing his intention to send the purchased Heritage Basmati Rice to the Food Analyst, State Food Laboratory, Hyderabad. Later, each part of the Heritage Basmati Rice of 4 se
The absence of the manufacturer as an accused in food safety violations renders prosecution against the licensee untenable, violating procedural requirements of the FSS Act.
Directors who resign before the alleged offense cannot be held vicariously liable under food safety laws without specific allegations of their involvement at the time of the offense.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the prosecution for an offense under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 must be filed within the prescribed time limit, and the absence o....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the provisions of the Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006 have an overriding effect over the Indian Penal Code, and the procedure for launching....
Prosecution under the Food Safety and Standards Act does not require a prior complaint for FIR; misbranding entails legal liability under both the IPC and Food Safety Act.
Prosecution under the Food Safety and Standards Act requires a confirming report from the Referral Laboratory; divergence in findings precludes legal action.
The court established that an offence under the Food Safety and Standards Act is committed upon receipt of the food analyst's report, and any prosecution must adhere to mandatory timelines; failure t....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
