A criminal prosecution under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, is liable to be quashed if it is instituted beyond the statutory one-year limitation period without the mandatory recorded extension by the competent authority, as the limitation period is a substantive safeguard.

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the private complaint in S.T.C.No.1745 of 2023 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Palani. The petitioner is arrayed as one of the accused, being the manufacturer of the packaged drinking water alleged to be substandard and unsafe under the provisions of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.

Case of the prosecution:

2. The case of the prosecution, as could be discerned from the complaint, is that on 20.10.2022, the Food Safety Officer conducted an inspection at Platform No.1, Palani Railway Station, and purchased 16 bottles of packaged drinking water branded as “VVM Aqua” from a salesperson for analysis.

3. The samples were drawn and divided in accordance with the statutory procedure and forwarded for analysis. The Food Analyst, Guindy, reported that the sample was substandard and unsafe within the meaning of Sections 3(1)(zx) and 3(1)(zz)(iii) of the Act.

4. At the instance of the petitioner, the second sample was sent to the Referral Food Laboratory, Pune, which also returned an adverse report. Based on the said reports, a complaint came to be filed implicating the seller, licensee, and the manufacturer.

Grounds for quash:

5. The petitioner seeks quashment primarily on the following grounds:

(i) The prosecution is barred by limitation under Section 77 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.

(ii) There is non-compliance with mandatory procedural safeguards in sampling and forwarding of the samples.

(iii) There are discrepancies between the analyst reports raising serious doubt regarding the integrity of the sample.

(iv) The prosecution has been launched mechanically without proper application of mind.

6. The respondent contends that:

(i) The offence involves public health and cannot be lightly interfered with.

(ii) The Referral Laboratory report is final and conclusive under Section 46(4) of the Act.

(iii) The question of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law.

(iv) The procedural requirements have been substantially complied with.

Arguments on either side:

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the complaint itself discloses that the offence is alleged to have taken place on 20.10.2022, whereas the complaint has been filed beyond the statutory period prescribed under Section 77 of the Act, without any valid extension or condonation.

8. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate would contend that the delay, if any, is attributable to the time consumed in obtaining the Referral Laboratory report and the same would not vitiate the prosecution.

Point for consideration:

9. The point that arises for consideration is whether the prosecution in S.T.C.No.1745 of 2023 is vitiated on account of limitation and procedural non-compliance, warranting interference under Section 528 BNSS?

Analysis:

10. At the outset, this Court is conscious of the settled principle that the inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS are to be exercised sparingly, particularly in matters involving factual adjudication. However, where a legal bar is apparent on the face of the record, this Court would be justified in exercising such jurisdiction.

11. Section 77 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 mandates that no Court shall take cognizance of an offence after the expiry of one year from the date of commission of the offence, unless the Commissioner of Food Safety approves prosecution within an extended period of up to three years, for reasons to be recorded in writing.

12. In the present case, the date of sampling is 20.10.2022.

The complaint, however, has been filed beyond the period