JUDGMENT :

(Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to call for the records and quash the prosecution in S.T.C.No.1935 of 2014 for an offence under Section 59 of the Food Safety and standards Act, 2006.)

This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings initiated under Sections 3(1)(zx) and 3(1)(zz)(v) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 [hereinafter 'said Act'] and Regulation 2.4.2.1 of Food Safety and Standards [Food Products Standards and Food Additives] and Regulations, 2011.

2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 12.11.2013, Food Safety Officer lifted samples of Maida from the petitioner's premises and thereafter, the samples were sent to analysis on 13.11.2013. The reports were received on 25.11.2013 and it indicated that the food lifted from the premises contained live weevils, dead worms and worm cocoons. Thereafter, on 05.12.2013, the reports appears to have been served on the petitioner. Immediately, a reply was sent by the petitioner stating that only the expired food items were seized and not the food items meant for sale. Thereafter, after completing the formalities, the Food Safety Officer has filed a complaint before the trial Court for the offences under Section 59 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. Though PW1 and PW3 were examined before the trial Court, this application has been filed to quash the proceedings.

3. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the counsel on record for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent.

4. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that though the trial has commenced, the very launching of the prosecution is barred under law and therefore, the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C is maintainable. To buttress his submission, he has placed reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court in Thesima Begam and Another Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and Ors arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.3542 of 2018 and another case in Kamlesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Another reported in (2014) 2 SCC 424 and submitted that when the very filing of the complaint and launching of the prosecution itself barred under law, the Court can very well quash the entire proceedings and the parties need not undergo the ordeal of the trial. The learned Senior counsel also submitted that though the Commissioner has accorded sanction to launch the prosecution on 18.06.2014, the complaint has been filed before the Judicial Magistrate only on 24.12.2014, which is ex facie barred under law. It is his further submission that it is not the case of the prosecution that the Commissioner has accorded sanction to launch the prosecution within the extended period of three years by giving reasons in writing and no such sanction whatsoever has been accorded in this case. He further submitted that proviso to Section 77 of said Act cannot be pressed into service in this case and the complaint itself is barred by limitation. The learned Senior counsel also contended that the company has not been made an accused as per Section 66 of the said Act. Similarly, there is violation of the mandatory provision contained in Section 42 of the said Act and that apart, learned Judicial Magistrate has also not applied his mind while taking cognizance. In routine manner, the complaint has been taken on file. Hence, learned Senior counsel seeks to quash the proceedings on these grounds.

5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submits that the complaint has been filed on 24.12.2014 and the Commissioner has accorded sanction to launch the prosecution on 18.06.2014. As the trial has already commenced, the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C cannot be maintained at this stage.

6. This Court perused the materials available on record. As indicated above, lifting of the sample on 12.11.2013 is not disputed. The analysis report dated 25.11.2013 is the basis for launching the complaint. It is relevant to note that, whenever