JUDGMENT :

Z.A. Haq, J.

1. Heard.

2. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith.

3. The applicant Nos. 2 to 8 are the trustees of the applicant No. 9-Charitable Trust and the applicant No. 1 is Manager and according to the applicant Nos. 2 to 9, the applicant No. 1 is incharge of the business of the Charitable Trust. The applicant No. 9 Charitable Trust is in the business of selling dairy products.

On 8th January 2014, Food Safety Officer had visited the premises of the applicant No. 9 and had drawn samples as per the procedure laid down under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 2006") and the Rules in presence of the panch witnesses. On 9th January 2014, the sample collected from the establishment of applicant No. 9 was sent for analysis to the Food Testing Laboratory, Mumbai. The Food Testing Laboratory gave report dated 31st January 2014 to the effect that the cow milk sample sent to it was "unsafe" as per Section 3(1)(zz)(v) of the Act of 2006. This report was received by the applicants on 11th March 2014. On receipt of the adverse report, the applicant No. 1 exercised his right under Section 46(4) of the Act of 2006 and preferred appeal against the report of food analysis before the Designated Officer. The applicant No. 1 received the Certificate of Analysis by the Referral Food Laboratory on 9th July 2014. As per this Certificate of Analysis, the sample which was collected from the establishment of the applicant No. 9-Charitable Trust was found to be "sub-standard" as per Section 3(1)(zx) of the Act of 2006.

After the Certificate of Analysis was received, the non-applicant filed complaint against the applicants under Section 3(1)(zx), 3(1)(zz)(v) read with Section 26(1), 26(2)(i), 26(2)(v), 27(2)(c) punishable under Sections 59 and 66(2) of the Act of 2006.

4. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicants have prayed that the prosecution launched against them be quashed. The alternate submission is made that the applicant Nos. 2 to 8 are the trustees of the applicant No. 9 Charitable Trust and are not responsible and concerned with the business and it is being looked after by the applicant No. 1 (Manager). Relying on the provisions of Section 66 of the Act of 2006, it is submitted that the applicant Nos. 2 to 8 cannot be prosecuted.

5. The learned advocate for the applicants has pointed out the relevant provisions i.e. Section 3(1)(zx), 3(1)(zz)(v), 42(3), 46(4) and 51 of the Act of 2006 and Rule 2.4.6 and Rule 3.1.1 of the Food Safety and Standards Rules, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 2011").

Section 3(1)(zx) and 3(1)(zz)(v) define "sub-standard" and "unsafe Food", respectively as follows:

"3(1)(zx). "substandard", an article of food shall be deemed to be substandard if it does not meet the specified standards but not so as to render the article of food unsafe;"

"3(1)(zz) "unsafe food" means an article of food whose nature, substance or quality is so affected as to render it injurious to health."

Thus, there is clear distinction between an article of food deemed to be 'substandard' and an article of food whose nature, substance or quality is so affected as to render it injurious to health.

6. Chapter-IX of the Act of 2006 deals with Offences and Penalties under the Act. Section 59 of the Act of 2006 provides for punishment for manufacture, sale, storage, distribution or import of any article of food for human consumption which is unsafe. Sub-sections (i) to (iv) provide for different punishments of imprisonment and also fine.

Section 51 of the Act of 2006 provides for penalty for manufacture, sale, storage, distribution or import of sub-standard food.

7. Chapter-III of the Rules of 2011 provides for the mechanism for 'Adjudication and Appeal to Tribunal'. Rule 3.1 of the Rules of 2011 deals with adjudication proceedings and, various sub-rules provide for the procedure for filing of appeal by the person from whom the sample is taken and the