SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Mad) 2227

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
Sajeer Koyiloth & Others - Appellant
Versus
The Food Safety Officer, Code No. 546, Chennai - Respondent
Crl. O.P. No. 18485 of 2020 & Crl. MP. Nos. 7231 of 2020
Decided On : 27-06-2022

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioners:P.S. Raman, Senior Counsel, S.Vijayan Subramanian, Advocate. For the Respondent:A. Gopinath, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

: Technical grounds are not sufficient to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Headnote:Food Safety - Quashing of Criminal Proceedings - Food Safety and Standards Act 2006, Section 59(i), Section 42(2), Section 77, Section 46(3)(2) - The court discussed the provisions of the Food Safety and Standards Act 2006, particularly focusing on the timelines for reporting by the Food Analyst, the limitation period for taking cognizance of an offense, and the grounds for quashing proceedings. The court emphasized that technical grounds raised by the petitioners were not sufficient to quash the proceedings and directed the trial court to complete the trial within a specified time frame. The judgment also cited relevant precedents from the Supreme Court regarding the scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C. and emphasized that issues related to evidence should be addressed during trial.

Fact of the Case:

The respondent lodged a complaint under Section 59(i) of the Food Safety and Standards Act against the petitioners for unsafe food samples.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that technical grounds raised by the petitioners were not sufficient to quash the proceedings.

Issues:

Timelines for reporting by Food Analyst, limitation period for taking cognizance of an offense, and grounds for quashing proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi:

Technical grounds are not sufficient to quash proceedings; issues related to evidence should be addressed during trial.

Final Decision:

Criminal Original Petition is dismissed; Trial Court directed to complete the trial within six months.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records pertaining to the case in C.C.No.2641 of 2019 on the file of the XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate's Court, Saidapet and quash the same.)

1. This petition has been filed to call for the records pertaining to the case in C.C.No.2641 of 2019 on the file of the XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet and quash the same.

2. The respondent has lodged a complaint under Section 59(i) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 against the petitioners. The petitioners who are arrayed as A1 to A5 and A7 are partners of the partnership firm named M/s.Palmshore Multicuisine BBQ Restaurant namely the 6th petitioner herein. On 27.10.2018, when the respondent inspected the 6th petitioner's restaurant, found that the BBQ chicken prepared food was kept on display, so that the public can see the dishes. The respondent has assumed that additional colour may have been added in the BBQ chicken prepared food. Therefore, the respondent has taken the samples of 500 grams x 4 pieces of BBQ chicken prepared food for inspection from the sixth respondent/M/s.Palmshore Multicuisine BBQ Restaurant. The same was sent to the approved food safety analysis laboratory (NABL) for analysis on 27.10.2018. It was received by the Food Analyst, Food Analysis Laboratory, Thanjavur on 27.10.2018 and after analysis, the analyst submitted its report on 18.02.2019 stating that the samples of BBQ Chicken prepared food is unsafe. The said report was received by the respondent on 21.02.2019. On receipt of said report, the Designated Officer of Tamil Nadu Food Safety and Standards Department has sent a letter to the Commissioner of Tamil Nadu Food Safety and Standards Department recommending initiation of proceedings for the offence under Section 59(i) of the Food Safety and Standards Act. 2006 against the petitioners. By an order dated 29.04.2019, the Commissioner had granted permission to the respondent to conduct the criminal case as against the petitioners. Accordingly, the respondent has lodged a complaint.

3. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners would submit that as per Section 42(2) of the Food Safety and Standards Act 2006, the Food Analyst is required to send report within a period of 14 days to the Designated Officer with the copy of samples to Commissioner of Food Safety, whereas in the case in hand, the Food Analyst had received samples of BBQ Chicken prepared food on 27.10.2018 and the Analyst failed to give report within a period of 14 days. On receipt of the samples, the Food Analyst sent a report only on 18.02.2019. Therefore, there is no cause of action to lodge the complaint.

4. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners further submits that as per Section 77 of the Food Safety and Standards Act 2006, no Courts shall take cognizance of the offence that too after the expiry period of one year from the date of commission of offence. The samples had been taken by the respondent on 27.10.2018 and in the present complaint, the petitioners have received summons on 07.12.2019. Therefore, the cognizance for the offence had been taken by the trial Court after expiry of one year.

5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) has submitted that as per Section 46(3)(2) of the Act, if the Analyst is not able to analyse the samples within a period of 14 days of its receipt, it shall inform the same to the Designated Officer and the Commissioner of Food Safety giving reasons and specifying time to be taken for analysis. Accordingly, the Food Analyst on receipt of sample of BBQ Chicken prepared food for analysis on 27.10.2018, sent a letter dated 07.11.2018 to the Designated Officer, Chennai as well as the Commissioner of Food Safety and Standards Department, stating that analysis cannot be done within a period of 14 days and the analysis report cannot be sent within a period of 14 days and requested further time for sending report. Ac

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top