JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Dhar, J.

Petitioners have challenged judgment/order dated 25.10.2017 passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (Sub Judge), Pattan, in a complaint under Section 26(1)(2)(i)(ii) of Food Safety & Standards Act, 2006. The petitioners are aggrieved of the aforesaid judgment/order only to the extent of certain remarks and observations made by the learned Magistrate while passing the aforesaid judgment.

2. The facts which emerge from the record are that a complaint for offences under Section 59 & 52 read with Section 3(1)(zz) and 3(1)(zf)(A)(i) of Food Safety & Standards Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 2006) came to be filed by Food Safety Officer, Pattan, against the respondents herein. The petitioners herein happen to be the officers of the complainant department and in launching prosecution against the respondents, they, in exercise of their powers under the provisions of the Act of 2006, initiated and undertook action in the matter. It appears that cognizance of the offences was taken by learned trial Magistrate and process was issued against the respondents, who, after appearance before the trial Magistrate, pleaded not guilty to the offences. Accordingly, the complainant department was directed to lead evidence in support of the allegations made in the complaint. After recording statements of a couple of witnesses of the complainant, the learned trial Magistrate closed the evidence of the complainant whereafter even the defence evidence also came to be closed. Ultimately, vide the impugned order, the learned trial Magistrate held that the complaint has been filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation and, as such, the same is not maintainable. Accordingly, the complaint of the complainant was dismissed and the accused/respondents were acquitted. While passing the aforesaid judgment/order of dismissal of the complaint, certain disparaging remarks came to be passed by the Ld. Magistrate against the petitioners.

3. It would be apt to notice the relevant portions of the impugned judgment/order, of which the petitioner are aggrieved. The same are reproduced as under:

“Complainant has engaged services of some lawyer who is not able to assist the court which is very unfortunate. He was asked to submit the law on the subject but he has given photo state of newspapers which unfortunately are the cases where persons of the accused have convicted by the Judicial Magistrate Budgam. The counsel is unable to understand the language of the court and has miserably failed to convince the Court. During recording of the statement of the complainants witness not a single document has been exhibited which establishes the conduct and the technical know how, Counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant did not even bother to seek the adjournment for preparing the case and advancing the arguments in support of the complaint. The result of this complainant fails on the following counts: -

1. From the perusal of the case file, it appears that the instant case although established by the report of the referral laboratory which reads as under.

2. The case stand compromised by Food Analyst Kashmir namely Hamidullah Dar who in his opinion has confirmed that the product in question qualified the parameters, this is not the first case where court has observed that cases/products questionable have been compromised by the said Food Analyst namely Hamidullah Dar, in this behalf this Court reiterates that the commissioner Food Safety shall review the requirements of this service3s in the department. He has been all along failed to provide his services for which he has been appointed either the said Food Analyst Kashmir Hamidullah Dar is corrupt or he is unable to perform his duties both situations are not acceptable where health of the citizens are involved. Let these observations be placed on his service record and enquiry be initiated against him.

3. That the report from the referral Laboratory Calcutta has been received