HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J
B.SELVAKUMAR – Appellant
Versus
STATE REP BY – Respondent
Food Safety - Criminal Original Petition - Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 - Sections 27(3), 52(1), 59(1) - Court interpreted liability of sellers and the procedural requirements of prosecution, leading to dismissal of the petition.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash proceedings for offenses under the Food Safety and Standards Act, after a food safety officer inspected a retail store and found a product to be misbranded and unsafe, based on an analysis report that took over a year to obtain.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the delay in analysis did not bar prosecution, as the seller's liability under the Food Safety and Standards Act includes responsibility for ensuring food safety and standards, which applies even to licensed and packed goods.
Issues: Whether the petitioner, as a seller, can be held liable under the Food Safety and Standards Act for selling misbranded food products despite not being the manufacturer.
Ratio Decidendi: A seller can be liable for misbranded food products under Section 27(3) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, and the responsibility for food safety extends to ensuring food products are not unsafe or misbranded, irrespective of the product's licensing by regulatory authorities.
Final Decision: The petition to quash the proceedings is dismissed.
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this Criminal Original petitions to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.2796 of 2021 on the file of IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, in which cognizance was taken for the offences punishable under Sections 52(1) and 59(1) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.
2. The case for the prosecution is that the complainant is a food safety officer duly authorized to inspect, take samples, and send them for analysis from any commercial organization. The complainant inspected M/s. Cheers Ventures, a retail supermarket located at No.79, LB Road, Adyar, Chennai, on 27.02.2019 at around 4:40 p.m. to take food samples. He introduced himself to a sales staff member named B. Muthukumar (A1). The complainant, on suspicion, bought 6 packets of Raja Snacks Mixture to be taken as 3 samples, with each sample consisting of 2 packets weighing 150 grams each. Upon seizure of the products, following appropriate procedures, the rights available under Section 2.4.1(10)(iii) of the Food Safety and Standards Rules 2011 were explained to the Manager (A1). Thereafter, one of the food samples was handed over to the designated officer.
3. On 01.03.2019, a notice was issued to A3 (the Manufacturer) to produce the requisite licenses immediately. On 11.03.2019, a letter explaining the delay in analysis was sent by the Food Analyst under Section 46(3)(iii) of the Act and under 2.3.2.(6) of the Rules and was received by the designated officer. About one year later, the report dated 13.02.2020 from the Food Analyst was received on 17.02.2020 stating that the sample violated Rule 2.2.1(4) & 2.2.2(8) of the Food Safety and Standards (Packaging & Labelling) Rules 2011. The sample was also found to be unsafe since it contained "Tartrazine 7.49mg/kg," which is not a permitted coloring agent, as per 15.1 of the Food Category System in Appendix-A of Food Safety and Standards (Food Products Standards & Food Additives) Regulation 2011. Thereafter, the designated officer sent communication to all the accused, including the petitioner, on 20.02.2020, intimating the report of the food analysts and the opportunity to file an appeal. Subsequently, upon obtaining necessary sanction from the Commissioner of the Food Safety Department, the present complaint has been filed.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has not committed any offense as alleged by the prosecution. He also submitted that the petitioner is only a seller under the Food Safety and Standards Act of 2006. In the present case, A3 is the manufacturer under Section 3(zc). The liability of the seller is enumerated under Section 27(3) of the Act. He also submitted that the sample taken from the petitioner's shop is a packed food which was licensed to be sold by FSSAI. The said product is being sold in various retail shops across Tamil Nadu; the only person who could be accountable for the safety and standard of the packaged goods is the manufacturer himself. Once the product is licensed to be sold by FSSAI, it is beyond the scope of the retailer to verify the content of each and every packaged good. Therefore, unless there is a specific averment that the retailer had knowledge that the product is unsafe, it would be obnoxious to charge the retailer under Section 59 of the Act. Therefore, he prays for the proceedings to be quashed.
5. To support his contentions, he relied on the following authorities: i) reported in 2019 SCC Online Mad 25015, in the case of High Court of Madras in P.Iyappan and others Vs.Food Safety Officer , in which stated as follows:
“4. Section 27 of the Food Safety and Standards Act
2006 reads as under;-
27. Liability of Manufacturers, packers, wholesalers, distributors and sellers-
(1) The manufacturer or packer of an article of food shall be liable for such article of food if it does not meet the requirements of this Act and the rules and regulations made thereunder.
(2) The wholesaler or distributor shall be liable und
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.