IMPORTANT POINT
Prosecutions for food safety violations must comply with the procedures established by the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, and cannot be based on complaints filed under the repealed Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, especially when the time limit for prosecution has expired.

JUDGMENT :

Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Anish Kumar Upadhyay, learned AGA for the State.

2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.1340 of 2011 (State Vs. Ashok Kumar Pal), under Sections-51, 59(i) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 2006'), Police Station-George Town, District-Allahabad (now Prayagraj), pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Allahabad as well as summoning order dated 12.09.2023.

3. Facts giving rise to the present case are that after collecting the sample of milk from his shop on 02.11.2010, the complaint was lodged against the applicant on 24.05.2011 under the provision of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1954'), on which the Magistrate, after taking cognizance, had issued a summon on 12.09.2023 to applicant. This cognizance and summoning order was challenged by the applicant before this court in Application under Section 482 No. - 38175 of 2022 on the ground that on the date of filing the complaint, the provisions of the Act, 1954 were already repealed on 29.07.2010 and a new act namely the Act, 2006 had come into force. This application was allowed by the Court vide order dated 03.07.2023 and cognizance as well as summoning order dated 12.09.2023 was set aside, with the liberty to proceed against the applicant as per the provisions of the Act, 2006. Thereafter, learned court below again passed an order dated 12.09.2023 on the basis of same complaint filed against the applicant and summoned the applicant under Sections 51, 59(i) of the Act, 2006, which is under challenge in the present application.

4. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that once the earlier summoning order dated 12.09.2023 was set aside by this Court on the ground that that summoning order was passed under the Act, 1954, which was already repealed by the Act, 2006, therefore, fresh complaint should have been filed as per the Act, 2006, but, in the present case, the complaint filed under the Act, 1954 was taken into consideration and summoning order was passed on that complaint as well as material available with the complaint. Second contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that as per Section-77 of the Act, 2006, the prosecution on the basis of fresh complaint under the Act, 2006 is itself barred beyond three years because the sample was collected on 02.11.2010 and if a fresh complaint is filed under the Act, 2006, then the concerned court cannot take cognizance over the same in view of Section-77 of the Act, 2006, because more than three years has already expired from the date of commission of offence i.e. on the date of collection of sample of milk.

5. Per contra, learned AGA has submitted incorrect mentioning of sections in the complaint cannot make the complaint illegal because of adulterated food (milk), found in the shop of applicant, the complaint was filed against him and on the basis of the same complaint and material, learned Magistrate has passed the order as per the new Act, 2006. Therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned summoning order.

6. After hearing the submission of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record, it appears that earlier complaint dated 24.05.2011 was filed as per the procedure of Section 20 of the Act, 1954 after taking sanction from the District Magistrate. Section 20 of the Act, 1954 is being quoted as under:

“20. Cognizance and trial of offences.—(1) [No prosecution for an offence under this Act not being an offence under section 14 or section 14A] shall be instituted except by, or with the written consent of, [the Central Government or the State Government or a person authorised in this behalf, by general or special order, by the Central Government or the State Government:

Provided that a prosecution for an offence under this Ac