The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of providing precise reasons in writing for extending the time limit for taking cognizance of offences under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, and the need for strict adherence to the specific provisions of the Act, overriding the general provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code.

ORDER :

1. The question to be resolved is whether the time limit prescribed under section 77 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (for brevity ‘the Act’) for taking cognizance of offences under the Act can be extended on the basis that the delay occurred due to ‘procedural and administrative reasons’.

2. Petitioner is a manufacturer of pan masala and is the accused in four criminal cases pending as S.T. No. 622/2015, S.T. No. 623/2015, S.T. No. 624/2015 & S.T. No. 52/2016, all before the Chief Judicial Magistrate’s Court, Palakkad. The prosecutions have been initiated alleging violation of sections 3(zz)(v), 26(2)(i), 27(2)(c) and section 59 of the Act, read with regulation 3.1.7(1) of the Food Safety and Standards and (Food Products Standards and Additives) Regulations, 2011, (for short the Regulation). These four criminal miscellaneous cases filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C. have challenged the prosecution of the petitioner in the above-referred four cases.

3. In all the above cases except one, the product pan masala was on analysis, detected with Magnesium Carbonate, while in S.T. No. 52/2016, the product was a mouth freshener called Pass-Pass, which was found to contain Magnesium Carbonate and Monosodium Glutamate. Both parties to this litigation agreed that Crl. M.C. No. 9210 of 2023 can be treated as the leading case, and hence, the facts of the said case are referred to hereunder, unless otherwise indicated.

4. On 28-04-2013, a consignment of Pan Masala sold under the brand name ‘Rajanigandha’ was seized at the Kerala check post, alleging that they contained tobacco and nicotine, the sale of which is prohibited in Kerala. After registration of different crimes before the Walayar Police Station, the samples were sent for chemical analysis. The report of the Food Analyst dated 20.09.2013 showed the test for nicotine and tobacco as negative. However, Magnesium Carbonate was detected in small quantities in the product.

5. On the basis of the aforenoted report dated 20-09-2013, the Designated Officer issued a letter dated 21.03.2015 seeking sanction for prosecuting the petitioner. By order dated 11.08.2015, the Commissioner of Food Safety, Kerala (hereafter referred to as ‘Commissioner’ for short) issued an order sanctioning prosecution after condoning the delay. The reason for condoning the delay was stated as due to “procedural and administrational delay.” Pursuant to the above sanction, a complaint was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court on 22-09-2015 and cognizance of the offence was taken and process was issued to the petitioner.

6. Petitioner questioned the order, taking cognizance as well as the order granting sanction for prosecution in Crl. M.C. No. 4277/2022. A learned single Judge of this Court, by order dated 15.07.2022, set aside the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 11-01-2016 and directed reconsideration. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, the petitioner was also granted an opportunity to be heard. Pursuant to the above direction, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate considered the matter afresh and, by the impugned order dated 20.07.2023, held that the prosecution had made out sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused.

7. Sri. Deepak Dhingra, learned counsel for the petitioner along with Adv. Telma Raju contended that though the initial seizure of the pan masala was on the allegation that the product contained nicotine and tobacco, after the analysis, the Detecting Officer turned around and made fresh allegations on the basis of the presence of Magnesium Carbonate. According to the learned counsel, Magnesium Carbonate is only an anti-caking agent, the presence of which occurs naturally due to the ingredients in pan masala, and the same is not within the control of the petitioner. Learned Counsel, however, confined his submissions to the manner in which the Commissioner condoned the delay and contended that the reason provided in the order of the Commissioner dated