ORDER

The present Criminal Revision has been preferred challenging the order dated 05.09.2023 passed by District Judge, Sheopur (M.P.) in RCA No. 74/2023. 2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that petitioner received a show cause notice from the Adjudicating Officer Sheopur, Madhya Pradesh alleging that on 5th of March, 2020 at 3:00 p.m. Food Safety Officer Sheopur visited Ganesh Soap Industry at Shivpuri Road. The samples of Supari, Mouth Freshener, Rajnigandha Paan-Masala (100 grams) were taken as the same were not found in accordance with standards sent to laboratory Bhopal. Laboratory, Bhopal in its report declared fragmented Paan-Masala (100 grams) to be sub-standard. From the receipt dated 28.02.2020, it was revealed that the said Paan-Masala (100 grams) were purchased from Ansh Enterprises, Jagannath Bhawan, Gwalior (M.P.). On account of which a show cause notice was given to petitioner by the Court.

3. The petitioner filed its reply stating therein that the proceedings are totally misconceived, illegal and devoid of merits. He has relied upon Section 47(1)(c)(iii) of the Food Safety and Standards Act and Rule 2.4.1(10) of the Rules. He has further relied upon the report of Food Analyst and cited Section 46(3)(i) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. The petitioner pleaded that report of Food Analyst had to be sent within 14 days from the date of receipt of samples.

However, the samples were not analyzed within the stipulated period as per the provision of Section 46(3)(ii) of the Act, therefore, without following the mandatory provisions, the complaint is liable to be dropped. However, vide order dated 09.08.2023 issued by the Court of Adjudicating Officer (Additional District Magistrate) District Sheopur (M.P.), the offence under Section 51 stands proved and the Court imposed penalty upon Deen Dayal Garg and Shri Santosh Kumar Gupta of Rs.50,000/- each and upon the petitioner imposed a penalty of Rs. Five Lakhs. The said amount was directed to be paid within a period of 15 days. Against the order dated 09.08.2023, petitioner filed an appeal before the Food Safty Appellate Tribunal/District and Sessions Judge, Sheopur (M.P.). He has also filed an application for interim relief for staying the order of Adjudicating Officer, dated 09.08.2023 during the pendency of appeal. However, no relief was granted to the petitioner by observing that the petitioner failed to deposit the amount of penalty imposed upon him within a period of 15 days. Hence, the present petition is filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the order impugned is perverse, illegal and against the settled principles of law. It is further argued that the Appellate Tribunal failed to appreciate that from the date of the order of Adjudicating Officer a statutory appeal to the order lies within a period of 30 days which period would only end on 16.08.2023 and thus the appeal could be filed by 15.08.2023. The appeal was filed to appellate Court within time and, therefore, interim relief could not be negated to the petitioner only on the ground that the amount of penalty had not been deposited within a period of 15 days. It is further argued that the Food Safety Officer has also erred in ignoring the mandatory provisions of Act. The order of Adjudicating Officer is also against the settled principles of law. Hence, the present revision be allowed and the order passed by courts below be set aside.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State vehemently opposed the revision filed by petitioner argued that present revision is not maintainable in the light of the provision of Section 71(6) & 76 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and prayed for dismissal of present revision.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties, consider the arguments and perused the materials available on record.

7. In this case, Registry has raised objection with the observation that instant revision ha