Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE URMILA SACHIN JOSHI- PHALKE
Shyamkumar Tulsilal Warnawal – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)
1. The instant application is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of Summary Criminal Case No.5325/2016 pending before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur.
2. The facts necessary for disposal of the application are as under:
The applicants are challenging complaint, lodged on 4.4.2016 by the Food Safety Officer, which is registered as Summary Criminal Case No.5325/2016 wherein the applicants are charged for violation of Sections 26(2)(i), 27(2)(c) read with 3(1)(zz) and Regulation 2.12 of the Food Safety Standards (Food Product Standards and Additives) Regulations 2011, Regulation 2.1.1 of the Food Safety Standards (Contaminants, Toxins and Residues) Regulations, 2011 punishable under Sections 59 and 66 of the FSS Act. The applicants are also assailing order of issuance of process by learned Magistrate on 17.4.2017.
3. In the complaint, complainant Food Inspector alleged that on 30.4.2015, he inspected premises of “Nestle India Limited’s Logistic Hub, wherein “Maggi Instant Noodles with Tastemaker” (Product) and “Baby and Me” Nutritional Supplement were stocked. The complainant purchased 4 packets o
Food samples must be analyzed in NABL-accredited laboratories to ensure compliance with the Food Safety and Standards Act; non-compliance renders analysis reports inadmissible.
Food testing must be conducted in NABL-accredited laboratories; non-compliance invalidates the analysis and any subsequent prosecution.
Prosecution under the Food Safety and Standards Act requires a confirming report from the Referral Laboratory; divergence in findings precludes legal action.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that delay in the food analyst's report and denial of appeal right do not warrant quashing the proceedings.
The court emphasized that a marginal difference in standards of food quality does not exempt a party from prosecution under food safety laws.
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.
Adherence to prescribed procedures for sample collection and analysis, consistency in analytical reports, and the importance of following food safety regulations influenced the court's decision.
The court confirmed the conviction based on compliance with food safety regulations, determining specific procedural requirements were mandatory, while others were directory, influencing the admissib....
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
