THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI CRIMINAL PETITION No.7490 OF 2025

ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘the BNSS’) seeking quashment of proceedings in C.C.No.283 of 2023 on the file of the I Metropolitan Magistrate (Municipal Court), Manoranjan Complex, Nampally, Hyderabad.

2. I have heard Mr. Aadesh Varma, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Jithender Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the respondent No.1-State.

3.(a). The prosecution’s case, in brief, is that, on 28 February 2022, at approximately 1:00 p.m., the complainant / the then Food Safety Officer, conducted a surprise inspection of the restaurant operated by Accused No. 2/the petitioner No.2. During this inspection, Accused No. 1/petitioner No.1, who was employed as the head chef, was present. The complainant examined various food items being served at the establishment and, suspecting adulteration, collected a sample of ‘Tandoori Chicken (full)’ in accordance with the prescribed legal procedure. The collected sample was subsequently forwarded for analysis.

3.(b). According to the analyst's report dated 17 March 2022, the food sample was found to contain the food additive ‘sunset yellow,’ which is prohibited in such food preparations. Based on these findings, the complainant submitted a report to the Commissioner of Food Safety, Hyderabad, requesting sanction to initiate prosecution. 3.(c). Upon receipt of the requisite sanction, which was granted through G.O.Ms.No.43 issued by the Health, Medical & Family Welfare (G) Department on 15 May 2022, a formal complaint was filed before the competent Court on 15 July 2022.

4.(a). Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the food samples were collected from the restaurant on 28 February 2022, whereas the complaint was filed only on 15 July 2023, well beyond the prescribed limitation period of one year. The explanation offered for this delay is merely administrative, which is insufficient and unreasonable. It was further submitted that, under Section 77 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as "the FSS Act"), a time limit is stipulated for the initiation of prosecution. This Court, in Criminal Petition Nos. 209 and 224 of 2020, among several others, has considered similar instances involving delay and has quashed the proceedings on that basis.

4.(b). Additionally, counsel argued that the food analyst’s report fails to identify the specific regulation allegedly violated. While the sample was analyzed under the Food Safety and Standards (Food Products Standards and Food Additives) Regulations, the report does not establish a defined standard applicable to “Tandoori Chicken.” In the absence of such a standard, the validity of the analysis and resultant prosecution is questionable.

In light of these submissions, learned counsel urged the Court to quash the proceedings.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, however, submitted that this Court has previously examined comparable factual scenarios in the aforementioned criminal petitions and quashed the proceedings. However, he requested for considering the merits of the present case and to pass suitable orders. 6. I have perused the materials on record.

7. The dates on which the premises were inspected, collection of sample, and the complaint filed are not in dispute. The record clearly reflects that the sanction for prosecution was granted by the Commissioner nearly one year after the date of sample collection.

8. Section 77 of the FSS Act, stipulates a limitation period of one year within which sanction for prosecution must be accorded. An exception exists whereby the Commissioner may extend this period; however, such extension must be accompanied by written reasons duly recorded.

9. A coordinate bench of this Court, in Criminal Petition Nos. 209 and 224 of 2020, examined this statutory provision and held that in the absence of a reaso