Back
2023 Supreme(Mad) 2694
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.
M/s. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd., through its regd. nominee Devendra Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Government of Tamil Nadu, through Food Safety Officer, Salem & Others – Respondents
Criminal Original Petition No. 16249 of 2023 & Crl.M.P. Nos. 10265 & 10266 of 2023
Decided On : 30-08-2023
For the Petitioner:Deepak Dingra, Advocate. For the Respondent: A. Damodaran, APP.
The mandatory obligation imposed on the Magistrate to inquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction, and the need for the Magistrate to record reasons for concluding that a prima facie case had been made out.
Headnote:
Food Safety and Standard Act - Summoning Order - Section 202 of the Code - [58, 59(i) of Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006] - The court found that the summoning order issued by the Court below was not in line with the mandate under Section 202 of the Code. The matter was remanded back to the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.3, Salem, with directions to apply his mind and comply with the mandate prescribed under Section 202 of the Code after going through the averments made in the complaint, the materials filed along with the same and the sworn statements recorded on the side of the complainant, if any and thereafter proceed further in accordance with law.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner (A1) sought to quash the proceedings alleging that the food item manufactured by him conformed to the standards specified under the Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006, and that there was a total non-application of mind on the part of the Court below by taking cognizance of the complaint without assigning any reasons.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the summoning order issued by the Court below was not in line with the mandate under Section 202 of the Code and hence, set aside the order and remanded the matter back to the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.3, Salem, with directions to comply with the mandate prescribed under Section 202 of the Code.
Issues: The issues raised were (a) the conformity of the food item manufactured by the petitioner with the standards specified under the relevant Act and Regulations, and (b) the non-application of mind on the part of the Court below in taking cognizance of the complaint without assigning any reasons.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the mandatory obligation imposed on the Magistrate to inquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction. It also highlighted the need for the Magistrate to record reasons for concluding that a prima facie case had been made out.
Final Decision: The order dated 10.6.2019 made in S.T.C.No. 3633 of 2019, through which, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.3, Salem had taken cognizance of the complaint and issued summons to the accused persons, was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.3, Salem, with directions to comply with the mandate prescribed under Section 202 of the Code.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: PETITION under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code praying to set aside the docket order passed by the Judicial Magistrate No.3, Salem in complaint bearing CC/STC No.3633 of 2019 dated 10.6.2019.)
1. This is a petition filed by the petitioner (A1) seeking to quash the proceedings dated 10.6.2019 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.3, Salem (for short, the Court below) in S.T.C.No.3633 of 2019.
2. By the order of this Court dated 18.7.2023, respondents 2 and 3 were deleted from the array of respondents. In view of the same, the remaining respondent shall be referred to as the respondent in this order throughout.
3. The facts leading to filing of this petition are as hereunder:
(i) The respondent herein filed a complaint before the Court below alleging that on 03.7.2018, the Designated Officer inspected the premises situated at Angalamman Kovil Street, Chevapet, Salem and found that the food items that were prohibited by the Government of Tamil Nadu were stocked and sold. This shop was run by the third respondent (A3). The petitioner (A1) was said to be the manufacturer and distributor of the food products called ''Rajnigandha flavoured Panmasala''. The second respondent (A2) was said to be manufacturer and distributor of the food product called ''Tulsi 00 Royal Zafrani Zarda'' and the third respondent (A3) was the one, who was running the shop and had stocked all the banned materials.
(ii) A sample was drawn from the seized goods from the shop of the third respondent (A3) and it was sent for testing to a private food laboratory, which is recognized by the Central Government and also by the Food Safety and Standards Commission. The food sample was received by the laboratory concerned on 18.7.2018 and a report dated 31.7.2018 was obtained with findings that the sample was found to be unsafe and that the sale of chewable tobacco was banned as per the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette. The report dated 31.7.2018 received by the Designated Officer was sent to the accused persons and a reply dated 29.8.2018 was also received from the second respondent (A2) on 03.9.2018.
(iii) It was alleged in the complaint (i) that the petitioner (A1) had manufactured a food item, which is prohibited for sale in Tamil Nadu by the Government of Tamil Nadu; (ii) that the same contravened the relevant Act and the Rules framed thereunder and (iii) that it was also unfit for human consumption.
(iv) It was further alleged in the complaint that the petitioner (A1) had committed offences under Section 58 and 59(i) of the Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006 (for brevity, the Act). Similarly, the second respondent (A2) was said to have manufactured a food product, which is prohibited for sale in Tamil Nadu as it was unsafe for human consumption and in the complaint, it was also alleged that they were liable for prosecution under the very same provisions. The third respondent was the one, who sold the banned products and accordingly, he contravened the relevant Act and the Rules framed thereunder and it was alleged that he was also proceeded against for the very same offences.
(v) After filing of the complaint, the Court below issued the impugned proceedings. Challenging the same, the petitioner (A1) alone is before this Court.
4. When the matter came up for hearing on 18.7.2023, this Court passed the following order:
"Mr.A.Damodharan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, takes notice on behalf of the first respondent.
2. The respondents 2 and 3 are not necessary parties in this petition and hence, they are deleted from the array of respondents.
3. The short issue that was canvassed by learned counsel for petitioner is that the petitioner, who has been arrayed as A1 is the manufacturer of a food item called ''Rajnigandha Flavoured Pan Masala''. This food item which was sent for analysis was found to confo
