Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 45145
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. Vijayakumar, J
B. Thiyagaseelan – Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu – Respondent
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.5782 of 2026|Crl.M.P(MD) No.6236 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: R. Jegadeeswaran
For the Respondents: R. Meenakshi Sundaram
Prosecution under the Food Safety and Standards Act cannot be sustained if the sampled product had already exceeded its expiry period at the time of reporting, as such procedural lapses invalidate the lab report for all accused, including retail dealers.
Headnote:The petitioner, a retail vendor, challenged a charge sheet filed under S. 59(i) and S. 52 of the Food Safety and Standards Act after samples of sweets taken from his shop were reported as non-compliant. The court noted that the charge sheet against the manufacturers in the same case had previously been quashed because the product had already exceeded its expiry period before the notice and report were received, rendering the sampling process a procedural failure. The court examined whether prosecution against a retail dealer can continue when the prosecution against the manufacturers on the same grounds of procedural violation has been quashed. The court reasoned that since the lab report was based on an expired product, it cannot form the basis for continuing prosecution, regardless of whether the party is a manufacturer or a retail dealer. With the above said observation, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. initiation of proceedings against a retail vendor for food safety violations. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. impact of prior quashing of charges against manufacturers due to procedural lapses. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. invalidity of prosecution based on lab reports of expired products. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
ORDER
The present petition has been filed by A1 in S.T.C.No.1131 of 2019 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Rajapalayam, Virudhunagar District, seeking to quash the charge sheet, wherein the petitioner is alleged to have committed offence under Sections 59(i) & 52 of Food Safety and Standards Act.
2. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the petitioner is a retail vendor of sweets through his grocery shop. A sample of four packets of Aarthi Maavu Sweet was taken from his shop and sealed in accordance with the procedures and sent the same to the Food Analyst on 28.07.2018 at about 02.30 p.m. Based upon the report, a complaint was lodged and case came to be taken on file in S.T.C.No.1131 of 2019 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Rajapalayam, Virudhunagar District.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the second and third accused are the manufacturers and they had challenged the charge sheet before this Court in Crl.O.P(MD) No.19430 of 2019 and the said petition was allowed and the charge sheet was quashed by an order dated 24.01.2022. According to him, when the charge sheet as against the manufacturers has already been quashed on the ground of violation of procedure as contemplated under the Food Safety and Standards Act, the question of continuing prosecution as against the retail dealer would not arise.
4. This Court has perused the order passed in Crl.O.P(MD) No.19430 of 2019, dated 24.01.2022. Paragarph No.9 and 10 are extracted as follows:
9. Considering the above, it is clearly evident that when the notice along with the report was received by the petitioners, the product has already exceeded its expiry period and as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, no useful purpose would be served by sending the product to the referral laboratory and as such, as rightly contended by the petitioner's side, sending of notice was only an eyewash.
10. Considering the above and also the legal position above referred, this Court has no other option, but to hold that the very launching of the complaint itself is not proper. Considering the above vilations, no purpose would be served in directing the petitioners to face the trial, as the respondent authority has miserably failed to follow the mandatory provisions contemplated in the said Act. Hence, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the proceedings in S.T.C.No.1131 of 2019, pending on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Rajapalayam as against the petitioners are liable to be quashed.
5. This Court has categorically found that when the product was sent for sampling, it has already exceeded its expiry period and in such circumstances, the lab report cannot be the basis for continuing the prosecution. The petitioner stands on the similar footing and therefore, the prosecution as against the petitioner cannot be continued, especially in the light of the fact that the petitioner is only a retail dealer.
6. In view of the above said facts, the charge sheet in S.T.C.No.1131 of 2019 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Rajapalayam, Virudhunagar District is hereby quashed as against the petitioner.
7. With the above said observation, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
