Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
V.G. ARUN
Sreehari R., S/o. Sandhyanath – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala, Represented By Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Kerala – Respondent
ORDER :
(V.G. ARUN, J.)
The petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in S.T.No.4937 of 2023 pending on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate -I, Kottayam. The case originated from a complaint filed by the 2nd respondent, initiating prosecution under Section 37 (1) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (the Act for short).
The allegations in the complaint are to the following effect;
On 11.01.2023, the Food Safety Officer inspected the shop premises, wherein the petitioners are functioning a food outlet named 'M/s.Al–Keyaan', and collected the sample of chicken shawarma for analysis. On analysis, the sample was found to contain added synthetic food colour, Sunset Yellow FCF (CI-15985), the use of which is not permitted for the heat treated processes for meat and poultry products as per Table 8 of Appendix A Food Category System 8.2.2 of Food Safety and Standards (Food Products Standards and Food Additives) Regulations 2011. Being thus unsafe as per Section 3 (1)(zz)(v) and 3(1)(zz)(vii) of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, its use amounts to a contravention punishable with imprisonment under Section 59 of the Act. The petitioners are seeking to get the prosecution against
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.
Procedural violations in food safety regulations can lead to quashing of prosecution if they cause prejudice to the accused's rights.
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.
The court established that an offence under the Food Safety and Standards Act is committed upon receipt of the food analyst's report, and any prosecution must adhere to mandatory timelines; failure t....
: Technical grounds are not sufficient to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
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
