The learned High Court Government Pleader accepts

notice for respondent.

2.

The respondent filed a private complaint under

section 200 of Cr.P.C. alleging that on 17/10/2015 when

he visited to the shop of the accused No.1 suspecting that

the tomato sauce kept in the shop for sale were of

substandard quality seized 4 samples and sent it for

analysis. The food analysis report declared that the tomato

sauce seized from the shop of the accused No.1 are of

substandard quality and contravene the provisions of Food

Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and Rules 2011 (for short

‘the act’), thus constituting the offence punishable under

Section 59 of the act 2006 and Rules 2011.

3.

The learned magistrate after perusing the

complaint took cognizance for the aforesaid offence and

- 3 -

issued summons to the petitioner/ accused No.2. Taking

exception to the same this petition is filed.

4.

Sri S. S. Yadrami, learned Senior counsel

appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondent

without furnishing the copy of the food analysis report has

deprived the petitioner of sending the sample to the

notified laboratory for analysis through the food safety

officer in writing. He further submits that the learned

Magistrate has exonerated the accused No.1 who is a

retailer on the ground that seizer of the sample is not

proved by the complaint. Hence he submits that the

impugned proceedings pending against the petitioner

requires to be quashed.

5.

On

the

other

hand,

learned

High

Court

Government Pleader appearing for the State submits that

the tomato sauce manufactured by the petitioner was of

substandard quality and as such petitioner has committed

an offence under section 59 of the act.

- 4 -

6.

I have considered the submissions made by the

learned counsel for the parties.

7.

The

petitioner/

accused

No.2

is

the

manufacturer of the sample of the tomato sauce alleged to

have been seized by the respondent which is found to be

of substandard quality. The accused No. is the retailer

save tomato sauce cognitions for the accused No.2. The

learned Magistrate has exonerated the accused No.1 for

the aforesaid offences on the ground that seizure of the

tomato sauce by the respondent is not proved. In view of

the exoneration for the accused No.1 for the aforesaid

offences the impugned proceedings pending against the

petitioner/accused No.2 also requires to be quashed since

seizure of the tomato sauce alleged to have been seized

by the respondent is not proved.

8.

The sub Rule 6 of Rule 2.4.2 of Rules 2011

specifies that a designated officer shall keep two copies of

analysis report for further action and one copy shall be

- 5 -

sent food safety officer for record and one copy to the food

business operator from whom the sample was taken.

However in the present case the designated officer has not

furnished the analysis report to the petitioner/accused

No.1 thus depriving the petitioner of sending the said

sample

for

the

further

analysis

to

any

NABL

accredited/FSSAI notified laboratory as specified under

sub Rule 1 of Rule 2.4.5 of the Rules 2011. Hence, the

complaint filed by the respondent stands vitiated for non

compliance of the mandatory provisions of the Rules.

Accordingly, I passed the following:

ORDER

i)

This criminal pretension is allowed.

ii)

The

impugned

proceedings

in

C.C.No.16/2021 pending on the file of

Additional

Civil

Judge

and

J.M.F.C.,

Angelina is hereby quashed insofar it

relates to the petitioner/accused No.2.

- 6 -

iii)

In view of disposal of the matter, pending

interlocutory applications, if any, do not

survive for consideration and are dismissed

accordingly.

Sd/-

JUDGE

SSP