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.

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 S.T.C.No.289 of 2020 on the file of the II Metropolitan Magistrate's Court, Chengalpattu, pending disposal and quash the same.)

1. This petition has been filed a petition to call for the records pertaining to the STC.No.289 of 2020 on file of II Judicial Magistrate Court, Chengalpattu and quash the same.

2. The respondent has lodged a complaint that the respondent inspected the 6th petitioner's restaurant viz., Ambur Star Briyani. It is seen that auspicious additional colour may have been added in boneless chicken 65 kept in the restaurant. Therefore, the respondent has taken 300 grams of 4 pieces of boneless chicken 65 for inspection. The same was duly informed to the staff of the Sixth respondent that the samples will be sent for approval of Food Analysis Laboratory (NABL) for analysis. The samples were sent to Food Safety Analysis Laboratory at Salem on 20.03.2019. The same was received by the Food Analysis Laboratory, Salem on 24.09.2019. Thereafter, the food analyst had submitted its report on 11.11.2019 stating that the samples of boneless Chicken 65 are unsafe. On receipt of notice, the petitioners filed an appeal and the same was considered and rejected. Thereafter, on request by the respondent, the Commissioner of Food Safety Department recommended for initiation of proceedings as against the petitioners.

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 boneless chicken 65 on 24.09.2019 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 11.11.2019. Therefore, there is no cause of action to lodge the complaint.

4. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners mentioned before this Court and sought for permission to raise additional grounds. Being satisfied with the reasons stated in his arguments, this Court permits him to raise additional grounds.

5. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that though the respondents sought for extension of time to send analysis report as contemplated under Section 46(3)(ii) the reasons stated by the respondent as untenable, the respondent stated the reasons that due to shortage of man power and also 14th day falls on the same day for many of the samples. He also produced the same requests in other cases in which also the same reasons are stated and therefore, the Food Analyst mechanically requested extension of time without applying his mind that too making stereo type requests. That apart, the expected delay mentioned as 740 days to analyse the same which were taken at the time of extension. Though, the analyst had sent reports within a period of 52 days from the date of receipt of sample received namely 11.11.2019, the samples were taken from the sixth respondent/hotel on 23.09.2019. Therefore, the Section 42(3) mandates the Analysts shall send report within a period of 14 days, since the samples can be spoiled if it is kept for more than 14 days.

6. Learned senior counsel further submitted that the petitioners' appeal right was denied by the Designated Officer for the reason that already the petitioners supplied unsafe food and without following the procedures as contemplated under the Act they kept the food and as such their appeal right was denied. The reason for denial of appeal right is untenable. All the petitioners are entitled for appeal before the Referral Food Laboratory with regard to the analysis report. He further submitted that the samples were taken from the 6th petitioner's Restaurant weighing 300 gms x 4 pieces of bonel