Prosecutions for food adulteration cannot proceed if there is no recognized mechanism for assessing the violations in question, as established by prior authority directives.

ORDER

The petitioners are the accused Nos.1 to 3 in C.C.

No.1203/2015 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court II, Nedumangad. The prosecution was launched on the basis Annexure A complaint submitted by the 3rd respondent alleging violation of Section 3 (1)(zz)(xii), Section 26 (1) & (2) (i), and Section 59 (i) of the Food Safety and Standards Act read with Regulation 2.10.1(1) of the Food Safety and Standards (Food Products Standards and Food Additives) Regulations, 2011 and any other relevant Sections/Rules/Regulations thereunder.

2. The main allegation against the petitioner is that, the tea sold by the petitioner was found to be adulterated as it contained iron fillings beyond the permissible limits. This Crl.M.C. is filed for quashing all further proceedings pursuant to Annexure A complaint.

3. Heard Sri.Benny P. Thomas, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt.Sreeja V., learned Public Prosecutor for the State and Smt.Chithra P. George, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3.

4. The specific contention put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, as per Annexure B Circular issued by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India, the prosecution in all cases with the aforesaid allegations, cause of action of which arose prior to 19.05.2016, were directed to be withdrawn. The reason for the same is that, even though the permissible limit of iron filling in the tea was fixed at the relevant time, there was no recognized mechanism for assessing the quantity of the same. The learned counsel also brought my attention to the Annexure C order passed by this Court, wherein this Court quashed a similar prosecution by placing reliance upon Annexure B circular.

5. After hearing both sides and perusing the records, I am of the view that, the issue is covered by Annexure C order which in turn was passed by placing reliance on Annexure B. The facts which lead to the filing of Annexure A compliant is exactly same and therefore, the proceedings initiated against the petitioners is liable to be quashed.

In such circumstances, this Crl.M.C. is allowed and Annexure A complaint and all further proceedings in C.C. No.1203/2015 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court – II, Nedumangad are hereby quashed.

Sd/-

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

JUDGE

scs

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 5410/2022 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COMPLAINT PREFERRED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE HONOURABLE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT -

II ,NEDUMANGAD IN C.C NO 1203/2015 Annexure B A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED

02.11.2017 ISSUED BY THE 2NDRESPONDENT IN THE MATTER OF IRON FILLINGS IN TEA Annexure C A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN CRL. M.C NO.

7902 OF 2017 DATED 14/2/2018