Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd. (Through Its AR Sh. Vikas Guleria) – Appellant
Versus
State Of NCT Delhi – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. impugned complaint and summoned persons found valid. (Para 1) |
JUDGMENT :
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
1. Petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the “ Cr.P.C .”) has been filed on behalf of the Petitioners seeking quashing of the Summoning Order dated 18.01.2021 passed in Complaint Case No. 7396/2020 which was filed under Sections 26 /59 of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the “FSS Act”) by the Respondent No. 2, Food Safety Officer.
2. Briefly stated, on 07.03.2019, Mr. R.K. Bhaskar, the then Food Safety Officer (FSO) along with Sh. Bal Mukund, FSO and Sh. Satish Kumar Gaur, Field Assistant, on the directions of Sh. B.P. Saroha, Designated Officer (DO), South West, had purchased 04 cartons of Ghee, each measuring one litre, on payment of Rs.1,756/- vide receipt dated 07.03.2019, from M/s Bhagwati Store, Shop No. G-1, Plot No.2, Manish Twin Plaza-2, Sector-11, Dwarka of which Sh. Vipul Kapoor was in-charge and responsible for day-to-day conduct of the business. Sh. Vijay Kumar Kapoor S/o Sh. Kashmiri Lal Kapoor was Proprietor of M/s Bhagwati Store and also in-charge and responsible fo
The court affirmed that extensions in prosecution timelines under the FSS Act due to extraordinary circumstances like a pandemic are valid, maintaining the integrity of food safety regulations.
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.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the prosecution for an offense under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 must be filed within the prescribed time limit, and the absence o....
Directors can be held vicariously liable for company offenses under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act if they are responsible for the company's conduct, and delays in prosecution do not automat....
The discretion of the Commissioner of Food Safety to approve prosecution beyond one year under Section 77 and the liability of directors under Section 66 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.
Prosecution under the Food Safety and Standards Act does not require a prior complaint for FIR; misbranding entails legal liability under both the IPC and Food Safety Act.
The absence of the manufacturer as an accused in food safety violations renders prosecution against the licensee untenable, violating procedural requirements of the FSS Act.
The Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006 allows for prosecution within three years from the date of commission of an offence, overriding general limitation provisions in the Cr.P.C.
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
