##PAGE1##

1

2026:CGHC:19088-DB

NAFR

RAHUL

JHA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

Digitally signed by

RAHUL JHA

Date: 2026.04.25

18:39:27 +0530

CRA No. 560 of 2026

Mahesh Chouksey S/o Ramdayal Chouksey Aged About 62 Years R/o Tarbahar

Bilaspur, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur,

Chhattisgarh

Appellant(s)

Versus

The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Dr. R.K. Shukla, Food Safety Officer, Food

And Herbal Administration, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.,

District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

Respondent(s)

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For Appellant(s) : Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Senior Advocate along with

Ms. Preeti Yadav, Advocate

For Resp/State : Mrs. Anusha Naik, Dy. GA

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge

Order on Board

Per Bibhu Datta Guru, J

25/04/2026

1. The present criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant under

Section 76 (1) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (hereafter ‘the Act’),

assailing the judgment and order dated 08/02/2019 passed by the learned

2

Sessions Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 278/2017, whereby the

appeal preferred by the appellant against the order dated 22/05/2012 passed by

the Additional District Magistrate and Adjudicating Officer, Bilaspur in Case

No. 01/2012 has been dismissed and the order of imposition of penalty of

₹1,00,000/- under Section 52 of the Act for violation of Section 26(2) of the

Act has been affirmed.

2. (a) The facts, in brief, as emerging from the record, are that the

appellant is the proprietor of a मि(cid:2)ठाई एवं न(cid:2)कीन manufacturing unit under the

name and style of “Mahesh Sweets” situated at Tarbahar Chowk, Bilaspur. On

15/10/2011 at about 4:00 PM, the Food Safety Officer, Food and Drugs

Administration, Bilaspur, inspected the premises of the appellant and found a

packed bag of 50 kilograms of “Ararot” stored for use in preparation of food

articles. After giving due notice in Form VA and obtaining acknowledgment, a

sample of the said food article was taken in the presence of witnesses upon

payment of its price. The sample was divided into four parts, duly sealed,

labeled, and packed in accordance with the prescribed procedure, and was sent

for analysis to the State Food Testing Laboratory, Raipur.

(b) As per the report of the Food Analyst dated 31/10/2011, the sample,

though conforming to standards, was found to be “Maize Starch” and not

“Ararot” as declared, and was therefore categorized as “misbranded” under the

provisions of the Act. On the basis of the said report, after obtaining necessary

sanction, a complaint was instituted against the appellant for violation of

Section 26(2) of the Act, punishable under Section 52 thereof.

3

(c) The Adjudicating Officer, after affording opportunity of hearing to the

appellant, held him guilty of the said violation and imposed a penalty of

₹1,00,000/- by order dated 22/05/2012. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant

preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court, which came to be dismissed by

the impugned judgment, affirming the findings recorded by the Adjudicating

Officer.

3. (i) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned

judgment is contrary to law and facts on record. It is contended that the

appellant is not engaged in the business of selling “Ararot” or maize starch, but

only runs a food establishment where items like cutlets are prepared and sold,

and the sample in question was taken from raw material purchased from the

market. In such circumstances, the appellant, being neither the manufacturer

nor supplier, cannot be held liable for alleged misbranding of the raw material,

particularly when no action has been taken against the manufacturer. It is

further submitted that no sample of the final food product, i.e., cutlet, was

taken, and therefore fastening liability for a raw ingredient is unsustainable. It

is also urged that as per the Food Analyst’s report, the sample was “within

norms” and only termed as “misbranded” under Section 3(2)(A)(