IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
G. GIRISH
Jemini Anil, D/o. Prabhakaran – Appellant
Versus
Food Safety Officer Pala Circle, Mini Civil Station – Respondent
ORDER :
Accused Nos.1 to 5 in C.C.No.498/2019 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Pala, have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, ‘Cr.PC’), to quash the proceedings against them in the said case. The aforesaid case arose out of a complaint filed by the Food Safety Officer, Pala Circle, under Section 42(5) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (in short, ‘Act’).
2. The prosecution case relates to the sale of two kilograms of chilli hybrid which contained the insecticide residue ‘Triazophos’ exceeding tolerance limit to the Food Safety Officer on 14.06.2018 at the shop by name ‘Reliance Retail Limited’ at Pala. The first accused is stated to be the Food Business Operator of the firm ‘M/s.Reliance Retail Limited’, and the second accused is said to be the person in-charge of the above said firm, which sold the food article to the Food Safety Officer. The third accused is mentioned as the establishment from which the aforesaid food item was sold to the Food Safety Officer. The fourth accused is the nominee of the warrantor, and the fifth accused is the warrantee firm which supplied the unsafe food article to
Dalchand v. Municipal Corpn., [(1984) 2 SCC 486]
State of Haryana v. Raghubir Dayal, [(1995) 1 SCC 133]
State of Kerala v. Alasserry Mohd., [(1978) 2 SCC 386]
T.V. Usman v. Food Inspector, Tellicherry Municipality, [(1994) 1 SCC 754]
Substantial compliance with procedural requirements in food safety law suffices; mere delay in analysis does not invalidate prosecution unless prejudice to the accused is demonstrated.
Non-compliance with mandatory provisions and procedural irregularities can render a complaint not maintainable and lead to the quashing of the charge sheet.
Procedural violations in food safety regulations can lead to quashing of prosecution if they cause prejudice to the accused's rights.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that delay in the food analyst's report and denial of appeal right do not warrant quashing the proceedings.
Delay in prosecution recommendation under Food Safety Act does not invalidate proceedings; statutory 'shall' interpreted as 'may' due to context and absence of consequences for such delay.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.