Back
D. NAGARJUN
P V G Srinivasa Rao – Appellant
Versus
State of Ts – Respondent
Question 1? What is the time limit for prosecution under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and how is it calculated in this case? Question 2? What are the consequences of not naming the company as an accused and of not specifying the petitioner’s role in the offense? Question 3? What is the principle regarding standards for food items (e.g., biryani) when no standards are prescribed under the Act?
Key Points: - (!) Time limit for prosecutions: Not more than one year from the date of commission of an offence; extension up to three years possible with written reasons by the Commissioner of Food Safety. - (!) The analyst report was received on 14/08/2013; thus, the complaint should have been filed on or before 13/08/2014 under Sec. 77. - (!) The complaint was filed on 19/10/2015, beyond the one-year limit, leading to quashing on limitation grounds. - (!) Calculation of limitation is contested: whether from date of sanction (5/2/2015) or from date of analyst report. - (!) Vicarious liability issues: Company not arrayed as accused; managerial role not specified; reliance on Sharad Kumar Sanghi/ Aneeta Hada principles. - (!) Hindustan Lever Limited v. Food Inspector: No standards prescribed for biryani; applying standards of other articles is unsustainable. - (!) The petition is allowed; proceedings quashed for lack of standard for biryani and other cited defects. - (!) - (!) Key grounds include non-arraying of company, lack of role specification, and limitations on sanction and cognizance. - (!) - (!) Debate on start of limitation from sanction date vs analyst report date. - (!) - (!) Final outcome: quashing of proceedings; no further action.
JUDGMENT
1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the petitioner-accused to quash C.C.No.996 of 2015 on the file of learned VI Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Warangal, the cognizance of which was taken for the offences under Sec. 3(1)(zz)(VII), 26 (2)(i) and 27
(i) read with Sec. 3.1 2(1)(6) of Food Safety Standards and Food Additives Regulations, 2011 punishable under Sec. 59
(i) of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.
2. The facts in brief as per the complaint filed by the respondent - Food Safety Officer, Warangal are as under:
a) On 2/8/2013 at 5.00 PM the Respondent - Food Safety Officer, Warangal visited M/s. Reliance Super Market and Reliance Fresh Limited, D.No.7/7/348, Machili Bazar, Hanumakonda, Warangal District and found the petitioner- accused was operating the business. The respondent - Food Safety Officer purchased 2 kilograms of vegetable biryani, which was cooked and being sold by paying Rs.240.00 and obtained cash receipt. The respondent has served notice in Form VA to the petitioner and informed that he will be sending the sample of said biryani to the food analysis. He has divided the biryani, which was
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
