IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
V. G. Arun, J
SPECIALTY INDIAN FOOD PARKS AND EXPORTS PVT. LTD – Appellant
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF FOOD SAFETY, KERALA – Respondent
Crl.MC 4495/2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. allegations of non-compliance with food safety standards and lack of laboratory accreditation. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. challenges regarding lab accreditation and delay in prosecution. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court's decision to quash the proceedings based on accreditation status. (Para 5) |
ORDER
Dated this the 12th day of June, 2025 Petitioner is the 2nd accused in S.T.No.1909 of 2017 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ranni. The case originated from a complaint filed by the Food Safety Officer alleging commission of offences under Section 59 r/w Sections 26(2)(i) and 3(1)(zz)(vii) of Food Safety and Standards act, 2006 and Regulation 3.1.2 (6) and 2.9.2.1 of Food Safety and Standards (Food Products Standards and Food Additives) Regulation, 2011.
2. The specific allegation is that the cardamom supplied by the petitioner, of which sample was collected from the Pamba Devaswom Store Room, did not conform to the standards prescribed in the Food Safety and Standards (Laboratory and Sample Analysis) Regulations, 2011 . The said finding was reached based on the report of analysis received from the Government Analyst’s Laboratory, Thiruvananthapuram. One of the specific grounds of challenge raised in this Crl.M.C is that, on the date of analysis, the laboratory where the test was conducted did not have accreditation for conducting the standard tests for cardamom and the parameters for which the test was conducted.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the prosecution is challenged also on the ground of violation of the time limit stipulated in Section 77 of the Act.
4. The learned ADGP submitted that even though the laboratory did not have accreditation on the date of analysis, the accreditation was obtained subsequently. Hence, the authority is now entitled to launch prosecution based on the analysis.
5. In so far as the laboratory did not have accreditation as on the date of analysis, based on which the present prosecution is initiated, the prayer for quashing the proceedings is liable to be allowed on that ground alone. Being so, I am not delving into other contentions raised by the Counsel on either side.
In the result the Crl.M.C is allowed.
Annexure C complaint and all further proceedings in S.T. No.1909 of 2017 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ranni, is quashed.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.