Complaints lacking specific allegations against petitioners are insufficient for establishing criminal liability under food safety regulations.

O R D E R

The petitioners are accused Nos.5 to 8 in C.C.Nos.301/2019 &

300/2019, respectively, on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Thamarassery. Those cases were instituted upon the complaints filed by Food Safety Officer, Thiruvampady Circle, alleging the commission of offences punishable under Sections 26 (1)(2)(i), 38(1)(a)(i), 59(i) & 3(1)(zz)(x) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (in short, ‘Act’).

2. The allegation in the aforesaid complaints is that the chilly whole samples, which the Food Safety Officer, Mobile Vigilance Squad, Kozhikode, collected from the retail shop of the firm by name “M/s Niwa Agro Foods”, Alakkaparamba, Manassery, which the accused Nos.1 to 4 represented, were found unsafe as per Section 3 (1)(zz)(x) of the Act due to the presence of yeast and mould exceeding the permissible limits. It is the further allegation that the above samples did not conform to the standards prescribed for chillies and capsicum falling under Regulation 2.9.3.1 of the Food Safety and Standards (Food Products Standards and Food Additives) Regulations, 2011, and therefore, were of substandard quality as per (1)(zx) of the Act.

3. As far as the petitioners herein are concerned, the only averment in the complaint is that the first accused submitted the purchase bill of the agency from where they purchased the food item, and that the persons arrayed as accused Nos.5 to 7 are the partners, and accused No.8, the firm, which supplied the unsafe food which was sold to the Food Safety Officer by the other accused.

4. In the present petition, the petitioners would contend that they are totally innocent, and that they have been falsely implicated in these cases. It is further contended that the averments in the complaints are not sufficient to initiate criminal proceedings against the petitioners in connection with the violations alleged thereunder.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Director General of Prosecutions representing the complainant.

6. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the complaints filed in these cases are hopelessly silent as to the specific acts constituting the offence alleged against the petitioners. In the cause title of the complaints, a vague statement has been incorporated beneath the description of accused Nos.5 to 7 as the, ‘partner and warrantor of the unsafe food, which was sold to the Food Safety Officer through the first offender’. Beneath the particulars of the eighth accused, it is stated to be ‘the warrantor firm which supplied the unsafe food which was sold to the Food Safety Officer through the first offender’. In addition to the above indications, there is the vague statement in the body of the complaint that the first accused submitted the purchase bill of the agency from where they purchased the food item and that the same was mentioned in the mahazar.

7. It has to be stated that the aforesaid indications in the complaints are totally insufficient to fasten the petitioners with the criminal liability alleged in these cases. The item of food which was subjected to analysis in these cases is obviously a primary food coming under the definition of Section 3 (zk) of the Act. Section 48 (2) of the Act deals with the parameters to be looked into to decide whether any food is unsafe or injurious to health. As per (2)(b) of the Act, if the quality or purity of the article, being primary food, has fallen below the specified standards due to natural causes and beyond the control of human agency, then such article shall not be deemed to be unsafe or substandard. As far as the present cases are concerned, An