Back
Prasanna E. V. – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala Represented By Secretary Department Of Health And Family Welfare – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Devan Ramachandran, J.
The Memorandum of this Writ Petition begins with the famous quotation of the Father of our Nation – Mahatma Gandhiji, that “there are people in the world so hungry, that God cannot appear to them except in the form of bread”.
2. This Court is fully aware why the petitioner began her pleadings in such manner because, she is the hapless mother of a 16 year old girl, who succumbed to food poisoning, after having consumed a proprietary food article by name “Shawarma”, allegedly sold by respondents 7 and 8.
3. It is horrifically tragic that what Mahatmaji saw as God, should rob a life.
4. The petitioner – mother alleges that it is the insouciant regulatory regime – having failed to conduct necessary inspections and evaluations in time, which is the primary cause for the horrible accident; and thus seeks compensation, under the principles of Constitutional Tort, to a sum of Rs,1,00,000/-. In addition, she also pleads that respondents 1 to 6 be directed to ensure strict and systematic enforcement of the provisions of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (‘Act’ for short); and Regulations, 2011 (‘Regulations’ for short), including by conducting periodical an
The court emphasized the necessity of strict enforcement of food safety regulations while denying compensation under Constitutional Tort due to insufficient evidence of regulatory failure.
Complaints lacking specific allegations against petitioners are insufficient for establishing criminal liability under food safety regulations.
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....
![Mumbai Jivdaya Mandali, [The Bombay Humaniterian Legue] VS Standard Review Call - 2024 Supreme(Guj) 460](https://supremetoday-s3.b-cdn.net/Gujarat_1.png)
The responsibility of the authorities for strict implementation of food safety regulations and the need for specific instances of violation to support a petition.
Any food article which is hazardous or injurious to public health is a potential danger to fundamental right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of Constitution of India.
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.
A food business operator is liable for food safety only if negligence is proven; otherwise, liability rests with the manufacturer of unsafe food products.
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....
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
