Prosecutions for food standards violations must comply with strict timelines and cannot be maintained if they are not validly sanctioned.

1. These Criminal Original Petitions have been filed seeking to quash the criminal prosecutions instituted in C.C. Nos. 249 of 2016 and C.C. Nos. 146 of 2016 for offences under S.3, sub-section (1)(a), clause (zz), sub clause (i)(ii), (v)(xi) and S.26, sub-section (1) & (2)(i)(ii) & (v) and S.27(1) of Food Safety Standards Act, 2006 and Regulation 2.4.14:2 of Food Safety and Standards (Food Products Standards and Food Additives) Regulations, 2011 and S.3, sub-section (1), clause (zf), (B), (II), S.23(1) of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and Regulations 2.2.1:3, 2.3.1:1 and 2.3.1:5 of Food Safety and Standards (Packaging and Labelling) Regulations, 2011 r/w 52 and 59(i) of the Act pursuant to private complaints filed by the respondent.

2. The case of the respondent - complainant in brief is as follows: -
(i) that one SVS Classic Foods is a wholesaler, stockist and retailer of Sago products. The petitioners 1 and 2 in both the original petitions are Manager and Managing Partner of SVS Classic Foods, and the 3rd petitioner in Crl.O.P. No. 18882 of 2016 is the firm - SVS Classic Foods, represented by its Managing Partner.
(ii) On 10.10.2013, the respondent conducted inspection and took two samples of sago powder under mahazars and sent them for analysis. Thereafter, on 23.01.2013, respondent received two separate reports dated 21.10.2013. According to the report, number of sago grains exhibit fluorescence under UV light was absent and hence, the petitioners have violated the provisions of the Act and Rules. The respondent after having obtained sanction from the authority filed a private complaint on 25.01.2016 and 16.03.2016 and the learned Magistrate took cognizance of offences and issued process. Seeking to quash the private complaints, the petitioners are before this court with these original petitions.

3. Mr. V.P. Sengottuvel, the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are only wholesaler, retailer and stockists, not the manufacturer of sago powder and therefore, he cannot be made liable for the alleged offence. That apart, under S.42(3) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), after the receipt of the food analysis report, the designated officer after scrutiny of the report shall decide as to whether the contravention is punishable with imprisonment or fine only and in the case of contravention punishable with imprisonment, he shall send his recommendations within a period of fourteen days to the Commissioner of Food Safety for sanctioning prosecution. In the instant case, even though the reports of the food analyst were received on 23.10.2013 and requests were made only on 13.12.2014 which was beyond the mandatory period of fourteen days prescribed under S.42(3) of the Act.

4. The learned counsel would further submit that, under S.77 of the Act, if the Food Safety Officer / designated officer decides to launch the prosecution he should do it within one year, however, proviso to S.77 of the Act enable the Commissioner to condone the delay for a period of three years. In the instant case, the complaints were filed on 25.01.2016 and 16.03.2016, beyond the period of one year. However, the sanctioning authority had assigned only a vague reason for sanctioning prosecution of the petitioners, stating that, administrative reasons caused the delay in filing the complaint in time, which according to the learned counsel for the petitioners was not sound and valid reasons and mere administrative delay cannot be a ground condoning delay for