THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL PETITION No.9976 of 2023

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioner/accused No.3, seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.277 of 2016 on the file of learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bodhan, registered for the offences under Sections 3(1) (zz) (X) 26 (2) (i) of Food Safety Act, 2006.

2. Heard learned counsel representing petitioner and Mr.E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. Perused the record.

3. The case of the respondent-complainant in brief is that on 04-09-2013 at 11.30 a.m. the Food Safety Officer, Nizamabad along with his Office Subordinate, inspected M/s.Tejaswini Agencies, Ushodaya College Road, Bodhan in the presence of its Proprietor and mediator, by disclosing his identity and purpose of his visit to the said shop and lifted samples of "Swastiks Tomoto Pickle" 300 grams and sent them for analysis. Thereafter, the Food Analyst, State Food Laboratory, Hyderabad on analysis of the sample of “Swastik Tomato Pickle” furnished opinion vide FA report No.644/2013, dt.21.09.2013 stating that the said pickle does not conform to the standard of mold count and it is unsafe. The respondent after having obtained sanction from the authority filed a complaint on 01.09.2015 for contravention of Sections 3(1) (ZZ) (x), 26 (2) (i) of Food Safety Act, 2006, on 06.12.2016 learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences and issued process. Assailing the same, the present Criminal Petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is a manufacturer of food products in the name and style of M/s.Swastik Masala Pickles and Food Products Private Limited. He further contended that there is inordinate and unexplained delay for more than 2 years in launching the prosecution and the learned trial Court has taken cognizance after 1½, which is not maintainable as per section 77 of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 which reads as follows:

Time Limit for Prosecutions: Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, no Court shall take cognizance of an offence under this Act, after the expiry of the period of 1 year from the date of commission of an offence.

Provided that the Commissioner of Food Safety, may for reasons to be recorded in writing approve prosecution within an extended period of up to 3 years.

He further contended that the alleged offence has taken place on 04.09.2013, the Commissioner of Food Safety, Telangana, Hyderabad has given approval for launching prosecution on 10.04.2015, the complaint was filed on 01.09.2015, the learned trial Court has taken cognizance on 06.12.2016. Hence, the trial Court has taken the cognizance beyond one year from the date of commission of offence. He further contended that the Food Safety Designated Officer, Nizamabad failed to pass orders on the appeal filed by the petitioner and failed to serve the notice under Form-VA to the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel further contended that Section 47 (1) (a) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 postulates that when a Food Safety Officer lifts sample of food for analysis, he shall give notice in writing of his intention to send the sample for analysis to the person from whom he has taken the sample and to the person, if any, whose name, address and other particulars have been disclosed. He further contended that Section 47 (1) (c) (iii) postulates that send the remaining part for analysis to an accredited laboratory, if so requested by the Food Business Operator under intimation to the designated officer. On reading of the Form-VA, dated 05.09.2013 issued to the petitioner for analysis by the food analyst and respondent failed to sent the remaining part for analysis to an accredited laboratory. Therefore, the petitioner has lost the valid right and he is deprived the benefit of comprising the results of analysis by the Food Analyst and accredited laboratory.

6. Learned counsel further contended that