IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 06-03-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN and Crl. MP Nos. 2573 & 2574 of 2023 Sivasankaran Sivakumar S/o. Late. Arunachalam Sivasankaran, Chief Financial Officer, Tata Consumer Products Ltd., (previously Known As Tata Global Beverages Limited)

Having Office at 4^th Floor, Block C, Kirloskar Business Park, Hebbal, Bangalore- 560024.

..Petitioner Vs S.Baskaran The Food Safety Officer, Wallajahpet District, Vellore.

..Respondent Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Wallajahpet in S.T.C.No.208 of 2016 in Charge Sheet No.1 of 2016 filed by the respondent herein and quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Karthikeyan,Senior Counsel for M/s. A. Jagadeeswari For Respondent : Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in S.T.C.No.208 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Wallajahpet.

2.The petitioner is the accused in the complaint lodged by the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 59(1) of the Food Safety and Standards Act 2006, alleging that on 24.06.2015, at about 11.45 a.m., the respondent drawn samples from the shop by name Rajeswaran Traders in respect of TATA Tea Chakra Gold 250 grams packet (hereinafter referred to as “product”). Subsequently, it was sent for Food Analyst for analysis. On receipt of the said report found that the said product is unsafe to consume. Subsequently, the second report was also obtained by the appeal to the Central Laboratory that the food is unsafe. After accorded the sanction of prosecute the petitioner, the respondent filed a complaint.

3.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner raised grounds that the respondent violated the provision under Section 42(3) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. It clearly shows that after receipt of the Food Analyst report, the Designated Officer shall sought for sanction within 14 days from the date of receipt of the Food Analyst report. However, the Designated Officer sought for sanction only after a period of 11 months from the receipt of the Food Analyst report. According to Rule 2.4.1 (14) of the Food Safety and Standards Rules 2011, the sample shall be drawn for food material not less than 500 grams. In the case on hand, the Food Safety Officer had sent 250 grams product and it is a clear violation of law. Further, the complaint filed only after one year from the date of commission of offence. It is a clear violation of the provision under Section 77 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.

4.On instructions, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

appearing for the respondent submitted that sanction for prosecution was carried belatedly due to administrative reason. Therefore, it can be condonable and provisions of Section 77 is clearly permit the Sanctioning Authority to accord sanction belatedly for the administrative reason. Insofar as the sample is required under Rule 2.4.1(14) Rules, 2011 is concerned, he produced the manual on general guidelines on sampling of 2016 issued by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, New Delhi. Accordingly, before the amendment i.e., before 2016, the samples shall be only 200 grams of any food products. Therefore, it is not a violation of Rule 2.4.1 (14) of the Food Safety and Standards Rules, 2011. He also submitted that the provision under Section 46(3) says that the Food Analyst shall submit a report within a period of 14 days from the date of receipt of any sample for analysis. However, the provision clearly says that if the Food Analyst could not able to send the report within a period of 14 days, he can very well inform the same to the Designated Officer and Commissioner of Food Safety by giv