Back
2017 Supreme(Gau) 823
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Rumi Kumari Phukan, J.
Silver Drop Food and Beverages. Ltd. (M/S) - Petitioner
Versus
State of Assam and another - Respondents
Crl. Pet. 696, 721, 739, 750 of 2015 and 334, 837 of 2016
Decided On : 25-05-2017
For the Petitioner: Mr. S. Chamaria, Mr. M. Phukan, Mr. D. Sarmah, Mr. Soubik Chanda, Mrs. Rajita Das
For the Respondent: Mr. D.P. Borah
Headnote:
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Food Safety and Safety Standard Act, 2006 – Section 47(c)(iii) – Shing the aforesaid proceeding pending – Petitioner submitted his representation in terms of Section 47(c)(iii) of the Food Safety and Safety Standard Act, 2006, within time, but instead of sending another sample for further analysis to the accredited laboratory, the respondent authority submitted the offence report wherein it has been alleged that the petitioner did not avail the benefit of the aforesaid provision of the said Act whereas the petitioners representation was duly received by them – That apart, the sample was analysed by the Food Analyst, State Public Health Laboratory, Bamunimaidam, which is not a notified one as per the notification issued by the State Government –Held, Supreme Court held that though the High Court has enormous power under Section 482 but such power needs to be exercised cautiously and defence of accused, even though appearing plausible, cannot be considered for exercise of inherent powers, however, documents with unimpeachable character can be considered to decide about continuation of criminal proceedings or whether complaint had been filed only to harass accused and if complaint was with ulterior motive then power under Section 482 can be exercised to prevent abuse of process and where complaint filed was genuine then the High Court cannot travel beyond prescribed limits and made it clear that sometimes on same set of facts, civil and criminal proceedings are maintainable – Petitions stand dismissed.
Rumi Kumari Phukan, J.
Heard Mr. S. Chamaria, learned counsel, for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. D. P. Borah, learned standing counsel, Health Department, Assam.
2. As the basic challenge in all the petitions are the same so all these cases are taken up together for disposal by this common order. However, for proper reflection of the matter, brief facts of each case, is discussed separately.
3. In Crl. Pet. No. 696/2015, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the C.R. Case No. 3332c/14 pending in the Court of CJM, Kamrup(M). According to the petitioner, the designated officer of Food Safety, Kamrup(M), collected some samples of Silver Drop drinking water from the commercial establishment of the petitioner for testing through their Food Laboratory on 28.04.2014 and the petitioner was informed by letter dated 04.06.2014 that the product was found to be unsafe for human consumption as per the analysis report of Food Analyst. The petitioner submitted his representation in terms of Section 47(c)(iii) of the Food Safety and Safety Standard Act, 2006(in short, 'FSS Act'), within time, but instead of sending another sample for further analysis to the accredited laboratory, the respondent authority submitted the offence report wherein it has been alleged that the petitioner did not avail the benefit of the aforesaid provision of the said Act whereas the petitioner's representation was duly received by them as on 07.01.2014. That apart, the sample was analysed by the Food Analyst, State Public Health Laboratory, Bamunimaidam, which is not a notified one as per the notification issued by the State Government.
4. It has also been contended that the respondent No. 2 in terms of the Section 47(1)(a) of the FSS Act, ought to have intimated the petitioner Company immediately after collection of the sample so that the Company can opt to invoke the provision of Section 47(1)(c)(iii) of FSSS Act.
5. Thus, challenging the violation of the relevant provision of the FSS Act, as envisaged under Section 47(1)(c)(iii) of the FSS Act as much as Rule 2.4.5(1) and 2 of the FSS Rules, the instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been filed for quashing the aforesaid proceeding pending before the learned trial Court. It has also been contended that the complaint has reflected about the collection of sample as Bisleri Brand, manufactured by M/s Sureka Brand Project P. Ltd. and the petitioner Company is in no way connected with that particular product.
6. In Crl. Pet. No. 837/2016, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the C.R. Case No. 2487/14 pending in the Court of JMFC, Kamrup(M). According to the petitioner, the designated officer of Food Safety, Kamrup(M), collected some samples of A1 King Star Packaged drinking water from the commercial establishment of the petitioner for testing through their Food Laboratory on 15.11.2013 and the petitioner was informed by letter dated 13.12.2013 that the product was found to be unsafe for human consumption as per the analysis report of Food Analyst. The petitioner submitted his representation in terms of Section 47(c)(iii) of the Food Safety and Safety Standard Act, 2006(in short, 'FSSS Act'), within time, but instead of sending another sample for further analysis to the accredited laboratory, the respondent authority submitted the offence report wherein it has been alleged that the petitioner could not avail the benefit of the aforesaid provision of the said Act whereas the petitioner's representation was duly received by them as on 24.01.2014. That apart, the sample was analysed at Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, which is not a notified one as per the notification issued by the State Government.
7. It has also been contended that the respondent No. 2 in terms of the Section 47(1)(a) of the FSS Act, ought to have intimated the petitioner Company immediately after collection of the sample so that the Company can opt to invoke the provision of Section 47(1)(c)(ii
