IMPORTANT POINT
It is an obligation of sanctioning authority to discharge his duty to give or withhold sanction only after having full knowledge of material facts of case.

ORDER

Prakash Shrivastava, J.—This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the sanction order dated 28.5.2016 and also challenging the order dated 26.7.2016 passed by the Judicial Adjudicating Authority rejecting the objection of the petitioner that no charge is made out under the Act and also praying for quashing the proceedings pending before the Additional District Magistrate-cum-Adjudicating Officer, Dewas in Case No.23/FSSAI/2015-16 (State of M.P. Vs. Sudhir Soni and others.

2. In brief, the petitioner’s case is that it is engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing of various packaged products including ‘noodles’ and ‘pasta’ under the brand name ‘Sunfeast’. The Food Safety Officer, Dewas had taken sample of ‘Sunfeast Yippee Noodles Magic Masala’ from retail premises of M/s Neelkamal Multi Trade Pvt. Ltd. on 1.6.2015 and had issued notice in Form VA under Rule 2.4.1 (3) of Food Safety and Standard Rules, 2011 to the retailer only. The sample was submitted for analysis to the Food Analyst, State Food Testing Laboratory, Bhopal and the report dated 4.7.2015 was obtained, in which no Monosodium Glutamate (MSG) was detected yet the Food Analyst in the reprot dated 22.12.2015 declared the samples to be misbranded on the ground that mentioning of ‘No MSG Added’ is misleading under Regulation 2.3(1)(5) of the Packaging and Labelling Regulation. The further case of the petitioner is that sanction for prosecution was wrongly granted by order dated 28.5.2016 by the designated officer and in pursuance to the said sanction the Food Safety Officer, Dewas had preferred a complaint before the Court of Additional District Magistratecum- Adjudicating Officer, Dewas alleging violation of Section 26(1),(2)(ii)(v), 3(zf)(A)(i), of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and Regulation 2.3(1)(5) of the Packaging and Labelling Regulation and being liable under Section 27(1) of the Act and punishable under Section 52 and Section 58 of Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006. The petitioner was issued notice by the Adjudicating Authority and the petitioner by appearing before the Adjudicating Authority had filed objection with respect to the maintainability of the complaint and prayed for dropping the proceedings on the ground that charge was not made out. By the order dated 26.7.2016 the Adjudicating Officer has rejected the objection and has held the complaint to be maintainable.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since no MSG was detected in the laboratory test of the sample, therefore, it is not a case of misbranding. He further submits that the petitioner had neither added MSG nor its natural presence was found, therefore, prosecution cannot be sustained. He has also submitted that the sanction was granted by the concerned authority mechanically without application of mind.

4. As against this, learned counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned action submitting that the petitioner had mentioned in the label that “No MSG Added” which was misleading since no negative declaration could be given and the petitioner could only mention the contents which were present on the label and could not have mentioned the contents which were not present.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. On the perusal of the record, it is noticed that the petitioner is sought to be prosecuted under the provisions of the Food, Safety and Standard Act, 2006 (for short “the Act”) and the F.S. & S. (Packaging and Labelling) Regulations, 2011 (for short “the Regulations”) on the ground of misbranding the product namely ‘Sunfeast Yippee Noodles Magic Masala’. The sample collected by the Food Safety Officer and analyzed by the Food Analyst was sent to the notified laboratory and its report was obtained vide Annexure P/2. The report reveals that ‘No MSG’ was detected in the sample. In the reply also the respondents have admitted that as per the report of the Food Analyst MSG content w