Back
SANDEEP N. BHATT
KUM KUM ROY CHAUDHARY D/O LATE SC ROY – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction of the case and details on the complaint. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments regarding the responsibilities of directors. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's assessment of the petitioners' director status. (Para 6) |
| 4. discussion on liability as per the fssai act. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. convergence of legal principles from related case law. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 6. final conclusion and quashing of the complaint. (Para 14) |
JUDGMENT :
SANDEEP N. BHATT, J.
1. All these petitions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (`the Code’ for short) for quashing and setting aside the complaint being Criminal Case No. 2197 of 2014 titled as B.C. Kathiriya Vs. Amitbhai Jentibhai Shah & Ors. Pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Junagadh district which is filed under Sections 3 (1)(zz)(1) 26(5), 27(2)(c) and 59(1) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (`FSSAI Act for short) and the summoning order dated 28.7.2015 passed in the same.
2. As the common question of facts and law are involved in all these petitions, at the request of learned advocates for the parties, they are heard together
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 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 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....
The necessity for prior permission from the Commissioner before prosecuting under the FSS Act and the requirement for magistrates to provide reasons when issuing summons are critical for ensuring due....
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 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.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the provisions of the Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006 have an overriding effect over the Indian Penal Code, and the procedure for launching....
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.
Complaints lacking specific allegations against petitioners are insufficient for establishing criminal liability under food safety regulations.
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
