ORDER :

Preface:

1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking to quash the prosecution in S.T.C. No.29 of 2024 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Pudukottai. The petitioners stand arrayed as Accused Nos.1 to 4 and are sought to be prosecuted for the alleged offences under Sections 52 and 59(i) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.

2. The gravamen of the challenge is that the prosecution, though clothed in the form of a statutory complaint under the Food Safety and Standards Act, stands vitiated on account of non-compliance with the mandatory safeguards contemplated under the Act. The petitioners would specifically contend that the analyst’s report, which forms the very substratum of the prosecution, was never furnished to them and that such omission has deprived them of the valuable statutory right available under law to question the report and seek further remedy. According to the petitioners, the continuation of the prosecution in the teeth of such infraction would amount to a clear abuse of process.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent. The materials placed on record have also been perused.

Case of the Prosecution:

4. The case of the prosecution, as projected in the complaint, is that the respondent is the Food Safety Officer attached to Pudukottai Town and Circle. According to the complaint, on 07.11.2020 at about 11.00 a.m., one Mr.Karthik, the then Food Safety Officer, inspected the premises of B.G. Naidu Sweets, situated at A.K.G.N. Complex, opposite to New Bus Stand, Pudukottai.

5. During the said inspection, the officer is stated to have introduced himself to the first accused, who was then present in the establishment, and proceeded with the inspection. On examination of the food articles kept for sale, he found handmade mixture and entertained suspicion that the said article might be unsafe for human consumption. He is stated to have purchased approximately 2 kilograms of the said mixture for a sum of Rs.560/- for the purpose of sampling.

6. It is the further case of the prosecution that the sample so collected was forwarded on the very same day for analysis to the Food Analyst Laboratory. The analyst’s report came to be issued on 17.12.2020, declaring the sample to be unsafe. Thereafter, on the basis of the said report, the Designated Officer is said to have initiated further action and obtained sanction from the Commissioner of Food Safety. On completion of these formalities, the complaint came to be laid before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Pudukottai, and the same was taken on file in S.T.C.No.29 of 2024 against the petitioners.

Grounds for Quash:

7. The petitioners assail the prosecution principally on the ground that the statutory procedure contemplated under Sections 42(2), 42(3), 46 and 47 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, has not been followed.

8. The first limb of the challenge is with respect to delay. According to the petitioners, the inspection and collection of sample admittedly took place on 07.11.2020, but the Food Analyst furnished the report only on 17.12.2020, beyond the period contemplated under Section 42(2) of the Act. It is further contended that the Designated Officer forwarded the recommendation for sanction only on 02.01.2021, thereby also offending Section 42(3) of the Act.

9. The second and more substantial limb of the challenge pertains to non-supply of the analyst’s report. It is the categorical stand of the petitioners that though the complaint makes a bald reference to the preparation of Form V-A and dispatch through courier, the petitioners were never served with either the analyst’s report or the statutory intimation. Consequently, they were denied the opportunity of invoking the further remedy available under the Act.

10. The petitioners would therefore submit that the prosecution