ORDER :

1. The petitioner is an accused standing trial for commission of offence alleged to have been committed under Sections 26(2)(ii) and 31(1) punishable under Sections 51 and 63 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (hereinafter called as 'FSS Act, 2006') and against him, charges are said to have been framed for the aforesaid offences by order dated 10.02.2020. The petitioner calls in question legality and validity of the order framing charges and also seeks to challenge entire proceeding on the ground that chargesheet filed against the petitioner for aforesaid offences are without jurisdiction and without authority of law.

2. Return has been filed by respondents No.1 and 2/State supporting the filing of chargesheet and framing of charges stating that challenge so made is unsustainable and bad in law.

3. Rejoinder has also been filed controverting the averments made in the counteraffidavit filed by respondents No.1 and 2.

4. Mr.Aman Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner has been chargesheeted for the aforesaid offences by prosecution and charges have been framed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Akaltara by the impugned order and that the offences alleged to have been committed under Section 26(2)(ii) of the FSS ACT, 2006 holding that the food article was found to be misbranded/ sub-standard, which is punishable under Section 51 of the FSS Act, 2006 and offence under Section 51 of the FSS Act, 2006 is punishable only with penalty to the extent of Rs.5 lakhs and therefore, the authority to impose penalty in terms of Section 51 of the FSS Act, 2006 has been vested with the Adjudicating Officer duly notified by the State Government under Section 68 of the FSS Act, 2006, as such, prosecution launched against the petitioner by the JMFC, Akaltara for offence under Section 26(2)(ii) of the FSS Act, 2006 is without jurisdiction and without authority of law. He would further submit that article seized from possession of respondent No.3 alleged to be sold by the petitioner is found sub-standard by letter dated 09.08.2017, but no right of appeal as provided under Section 46(4) of the FSS Act, 2006 has been given to the petitioner by which he has been deprived of his indefeasible right as it was given to respondent No.3 vide letter dated 24.8.2017, therefore, the petitioner has been deprived of his valuable right and as such, the prosecution and subsequent proceeding initiated against the petitioner by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Akalatara in Criminal Case No.487/2018 deserves to be quashed.

5. On the other hand, Mr.Ravi Bhagat, learned Deputy Government Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2/State, would support the prosecution as well as order framing charge against the petitioner. He would further submit that no interference is warranted under Section 482 of the CrPC.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection.

7. The learned Magistrate by order dated 10.02.2020 held the primafacie offence under Section 26(2)(ii) of the FSS Act, 2006, which is punishable under Section 51 of the said Act. The said order states as under:

Thereafter, the following charges were framed:-

U;k;ky;&vkuan cksjdj] U;kf;d eftLVsªV ÁFke Js.kh] vdyrjk ¼N-x-½
AA vkjksi i= AA
¼vkt fnukad 10@02@2020 dks fojfpr½
eS vkuan cksjdj] U;kf;d eftLVsªV ÁFke Js.kh] vdyrjk ¼N-x-½] bl rgjhj ds tfj;s] rqe 1 vfHk"ksd xqIrk ij