IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the right to appeal under Sec. 46(4) of the Food Safety and Standards Act must be provided to the accused before the expiry of the product's shelf-life, and failure to do so constitutes a fundamental illegality affecting the prosecution's validity.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. Heard.

2. ADMIT. Taken up for final disposal forthwith by the consent of learned advocates for the parties.

3. In this criminal application, filed under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicants, who have been arrayed as accused nos. 4 to 7 in a criminal proceeding bearing Summary Criminal Case No. 2347/2015 for the offences punishable under Ss. 3(1) (zz)(iii) and (x) read with Ss. 26(2)(i), 27(1), 27(2)(c) punishable under Ss. 59 and 66 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 2006" for short), pending on the file of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur, have prayed for quashing and setting aside the proceeding against them.

4. The relevant facts are as follows : The Food Safety Officer along with panch witnesses, on 31/1/2014, had visited the premises of M/s J. K. Daily Needs, situated at CPWD Quarters, Opposite Nirmala Girls Hostel, Katol Road, Nagpur and purchased 16 company packed, sealed and labeled, each 65 gms weight, Milk Chocolate (Cadbury Dairy Milk Silk) from accused no.1 - Mohd. Rashid. The notice in Form V-A under Rule 2.4.1(3) was issued to accused no.1. The sample was sent to Food Analyst, Food Testing Laboratory, Mumbai on 1/2/2014. The respondent on 10/3/2014 received the report dtd. 20/2/2014 of the Food Analyst, wherein it is opined that the sample chocolate was unsafe under Sec. 3(1)(zz)(iii) and (x) of the Act of 2006. The respondent received sanction from the Asstt. Commissioner (Food) for filing the complaint. The respondent on 21/1/2015 filed the criminal complaint in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur for the offences referred above. In the said complaint, the applicants have been arrayed as accused nos.4 to 7. They are the manufacturer of the product. Learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, on the basis of the facts stated in the complaint as well as on going through the accompanied documents, issued process against the accused.

5. The applicants/accused nos. 4 to 7 have challenged the prosecution on multiple grounds. The most important ground pressed into service at the time of argument of this application, is denial of right of appeal, conferred under Sec. 46(4) read with Rule 2.4.6 of the Food Safety and Standard Rules, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 2011" for short). It is stated that the report in this case was received on 10/3/2014. Before filing the complaint, copy of the report of the Food Analyst was not provided to the applicants so as to enable them to exercise their right of appeal as provided under Sec. 46 subsec. (4) of the Act of 2006 and Rule 2.4.6 of the Rules of 2011. Learned advocate for the applicants submitted that copy of the report must be provided immediately to the manufacturer so as to enable the manufacturer to exercise the right of appeal. Learned advocate submitted that in any case the manufacturer must receive copy of the report before expiry of shelf-life of the product.

6. Learned advocate submitted that in this case, admittedly, the product was packed in April-2013. The Best Before date for its use was twelve months from the date of packing. Learned advocate, therefore, pointed out that the shelf-life of the product expired in April2014. It is further submitted that the summons in the complaint was served to the applicants in 2021. Learned advocate submitted that on receipt of the report of the analyst, a copy of the same was required to be served upon the manufacturer and the applicants so as to enable them to exercise their right of appeal provided under Sec. 46, sub-sec. (4) of the Act of 2006. Learned advocate submitted that the procedural mechanism for disposal of the appeal and the evidentiary value of the said report after re-analysis has been provided in Sec. 46(4) of the Act of 2006 and Rule 2.4.6 of the Rules of 2011. Learned advocate submitted that this lapse committed by the respondent has denied the right of appeal to the applican