Liability of individuals under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 requires specific allegations of consent, connivance, or negligence, and mere designation or position may not suffice to establish liability.

1. Heard Mr. S.A. Bramhe, Advocate for applicant and Mr. R.S. Nayak, A.P.P. for non applicant-State. The present proceeding is under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the Regular Criminal Case No. 129/2013 pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Amgaon for an offence under Section 3 (1) (zz) (ix), 26 (1), 26 (2) (i), 27 (2) (c) punishable under Section 59 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. Along with compilation, the complaint which gives rise to present proceeding is annexed and it is at page nos. 35 to 45.

2. The present applicant is shown as accused no. 2 in the said complaint. The cause title of the complaint depicts that he is Secretary of Gurukrupa Adiwasi Prathmik and Madhyamik Ashramshala, Thana, Tq. Amgaon, Dist. Gondia. As per the complaint, the complainant Shri P.A. Umap, is Food Safety Officer duly appointed under Section 37 read with Rule 2.1.2 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and Rules there under (hereinafter referred to as the “Act” and “Rules” for the sake of brevity). The said Shri Umap is appointed as Food Safety Officer vide notification No. FSSA/MS/FDA/Food Safety Officers dated 01.08.2011. The complaint further proceeds that on 15.09.2012, at about 13.30 hrs. the complainant along with panch witness visited the premises of accused no. 3-Gurukrupa Adiwasi Prathmik and Madhyamik Ashramshala, Thana, Tq. Amgaon, District Gondia. That time accused no.1-Raju Narayan Chute, Superintendent was present in the premises and was looking after the stock of food articles including rice for preparation of meals for students.

3. The complainant disclosed his identity and also his intention for drawing sample of the food articles. The complainant, after disclosing his intention for drawing the sample of rice under the said Act for test and analysis and demanded and purchased 2 Kg. Rice from the accused and paid the cost of Rs. 13.30/- of it as per the market rate and obtained cash receipt for the same. Thereafter, he issued notice in Form VA to the accused no.1 informing him that the sample was taken for analysis and obtained receipt for the same. Thereafter complainant issued notice under Rule 2.4.1 (4) to the accused no.1 asking thereby the source of sampled food article of rice and also about the fourth part and obtained receipt for the same. It was replied by accused no.1 in writing that rice is supplied by Tahsildar, Amgaon, District Gondia and he does not intend to send the fourth part to any laboratory.

4. Subsequent to that, the complainant at the spot itself divided the rice in four equal parts. Each part of rice was put in clean and dry empty plastic jar and closed the mouth of the jar and it was sealed. The complainant thereafter affixed a label on each part of the sample detailing therein about food article, place and date of sampling and paper slip number and signature of the complainant, panch witness and accused no. 1. Thereafter, the complainant wrapped each part of the sample in thick brown paper and pasted a paper slip of Shri M.S. Kembalkar, the then Designated Officer, Food and Drug Administration (M.S.), Bhandara bearing Code No. FSSA/BH/DO1, Sr. No. 0142 from bottom to top and obtained cross signature of accused no. 1 on each part of sample in such a way that part of signature will appear on brown paper. Thereafter the complainant seized the remaining stock of 3948 Kg. rice cost of which was Rs. 26,254/- as per the powers delegated to him under Section 38 of the said Act by giving notice in Form Nos. II and III and kept the seized rice in safe custody of accused no.1 till further orders. The complainant thereafter on 17.09.2012 sent a sample of rice to the Food Analyst, Regional Public Health Laboratory, Nagpur.

5. The complainant received the analytical report of rice of Food Analyst, RPHL/NGP/ FSSA/57/12, dated 24.09.2012. The said report reveals that the sample of rice does not conform Regulation No. 2.4.6.5 of Chapter 2 of Food