Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
D.Nagarjun, J.
P V G Srinivasa Rao - Appellant
Versus
State of Ts - Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 4422 of 2017
Decided On : 19-09-2022
Food Safety Standards - Criminal Procedure - Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, Sec. 3(1)(zz)(VII), 26(2)(i), 27(i), 3.12(1)(6), 59(i) - The court discussed the provisions of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, particularly focusing on the time limit for prosecutions, vicarious liability, and the necessity of standards for specific food items. The interpretation of these provisions influenced the court's decision to quash the proceedings against the accused.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, a Food Safety Officer, found the petitioner operating a business and purchased vegetable biryani for analysis. The analysis revealed the biryani contained synthetic color and was unsafe for consumption. The petitioner failed to utilize opportunities to send samples for further analysis or to appeal the analyst report.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complaint was filed beyond the limitation period prescribed by the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. It also noted that the company was not made an accused, and the petitioner's role in the alleged offense was not specified. Additionally, the court held that no standards were prescribed for biryani under the Act.
Issues: The issues included the timeliness of the complaint, the absence of the company as an accused, the lack of specification regarding the petitioner's role, and the absence of standards for biryani under the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the time limit for prosecutions, vicarious liability, and the necessity of standards for specific food items under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.
Final Decision: The court quashed the proceedings against the petitioner-accused in C.C.No.996 of 2015, citing the filing of the complaint beyond the limitation period and the absence of standards for biryani 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 divided into four equal parts of 500 grams each and placed in a dry plastic container and then added 2 ml of formalin and packed tightly as per the procedure and put the labels.
b) A Panchanama was also drafted in the presence of the witnesses. The petitioner was informed vide notice dtd. 2/8/2013 that as per Sec. 27 (1)(c)(iii) and Rule 2.4.5 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, there is a provision to refer the remaining part of the sample to accredited laboratory, if the petitioner desires by paying analysis charges after making an application to the Food Safety Officer, Warangal. However, the petitioner has not availed such an opportunity given to him. The respondent has sent one of the samples including Form VI to Food Analysis by registered post on 3/8/2013 i.e., on the very next date of purchasing biryani and also sent the required documents to him.
c) On 3/8/2013 itself the Food Safety Officer has deposited second and third samples before the Food Safety Designated Officer, Warangal. The fourth sample was also deposited before the Food Safety Designated Officer on 12/8/2013. However, the petitioner has no availed an opportunity of sending the sample to accredited laboratory. The food analyst after analyzing the food sample has sent a report dtd. 14/8/2013 vide report bearing No.599/2013 in Form-B to the Food Safety Designated Officer, which was received on 19/08/2013 stating that the sample contains added synthetic colour and it is unsafe.
d) On 19/8/2013 the Food Safety Designated Officer, Warangal has issued a notice to the petitioner enclosing the report of the analysis intimating the petitioner to prefer an appeal in case if he is aggrieved within 30 days.
3. A detailed report was submitted to the Commissioner, Food Safety, Telangana by the Food Safety Designated Officer and finally prayed the Court to take cognizance of the offence against the petitioner-accused for the offence 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. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner-accused has filed the present criminal petition on the following grounds:
i) A reading of Sec. 66 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, it mandates arraying of the Company as an accused but in the complaint the Company is not made as an accused. ii) When statute prescribes a period of limitation, the complaint shall be filed within limitation, failing which the complaint is not maintainable. The complaint filed by the respondent is hopelessly barred by limitation.
iii) When no standards have been prescribed for the vegetable biryani, drawing sample, sending the same for analysis and filing of the complaint is un
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the prosecution for an offense under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 must be filed within the prescribed time limit, and the absence o....
The discretion of the Commissioner of Food Safety to approve prosecution beyond one year under Section 77 and the liability of directors under Section 66 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.
: Technical grounds are not sufficient to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
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
