IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 12.09.2025 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR Crl.O.P.No.7471 of 2024 and Crl.M.P.Nos.5420 & 5421 of 2024

1.V.Raghunathan

2.Nestle India Limited, Represented by its Authorised Signatory Mr.Chandrasekhar, Unit II Patti, Kalyana, Kiwana Road, Samalkha, 132101, Panipat, Haryana. ... Petitioners Vs.

State represented by its Food Safety Officer, Area Code No.538, Chennai District, O/o.The Designated Officer, Tamil Nadu Food Safety and Drug Department, No.33, West Jones Road, Saidapet, Chennai – 600 015. ... Respondent Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records in C.C.No.1841 of 2019 pending on the file of the learned X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, and quash the complaint dated 13.12.2019 and consequently, the proceedings initiated in furtherance thereto.

For Petitioners : Mr.R.S.Diwaagar For Respondent : Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan, Additional Public Prosecutor

O R D E R

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the complaint in C.C.No.1841 of 2019 on the file of the X Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai, for the offence under Section 59(i) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as “FSSA” for brevity).

2.It is the case of the respondent/Food Safety Officer that, on

22.08.2018, they received a WhatsApp complaint from one K.Yogesh Kumar stating that he purchased 2 Nos. of Nestle Nan Excella Pro Follow up formula Powder-2, 400 gms, in original sealed condition from Kasthuri Bai Medicals (A1) and after feeding the same, his baby developed vomiting and diarrhoea and that he has one packet Nestle Nan Excella Pro Follow up formula Powder-2 in original sealed condition bearing Batch No.7334661 T2/B. Based on such complaint, the respondent/Food Safety Officer, on inspection, suspected that the said product contravenes the FSSAI standards and therefore, purchased one product from the said Yogesh Kumar for a sum of Rs.692/- and lifted a sample in compliance of the provisions of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. Since one part of the sample was available, the respondent packed the samples as per the norms given in the Act and Rules. The sample was sent for analysis on 23.08.2018 to the Food Analyst, Food Analysis Laboratory, Thanjavur, and the same was intimated to the Designated Officer, Chennai. After analysis, the said sample was declared by the Food Analyst as “Unsafe Food” vide detailed report dated 16.10.2018 and the same was received by the Designated Officer on 22.10.2018. Therefore, the complainant, after getting sanction from the Designated Officer, initiated prosecution as against the seller (A1), distributor (A2), marketing agent (A3) and manufacturer (A4), for the offence punishable under Section 59(i) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. The said complaint was taken cognizance by the learned V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, in C.C.No.1841 of 2019. Challenging the same, the present Criminal Original Petition has been filed by A3 (marketing agent) and A4 (manufacturer).

3.It is also relevant to note that, originally, the complaint was quashed by this Court in the earlier round of litigation in Crl.O.P.No.18528 of 2023 by order dated 24.08.2023 on the ground that rubber stamp cognizance has been taken by the trial Court in a mechanical fashion. Thereafter, the compliant has been taken cognizance afresh and now, the present Criminal Original Petition has been filed for quashment on other grounds.

4.Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Food Analyst has not provided the analysis report within 14 days from the date of receipt of sample from the Food Safety Officer as mandated under Section 42(2) of FSSA. Further, it is his contention that the Designated Officer has not sent his recommendation to the Commissioner of Food Safety for sanction of prosecution within 14 days from the date of receipt of the report from