THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.3437 of 2022

O R D E R

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.4 and 3 to quash the criminal proceedings against them in C.C.No.18 of 2021 on the file of the learned I Metropolitan Magistrate (Municipal Court) at Chidibazar, Hyderabad (for short ‘learned the trial Court’), registered for the offences under Sections 3(1)(zz)(iii), 21(i) and 26(2)(i) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and Food Safety and Stands (Food Products and Food Additive) Regulation, 2011.

02. Heard Sri Rajesh Batra, learned counsel, representing Sri Santhosh Alla, learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt.S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State-respondents.

03. Brief facts of the case are that: On 20.06.2017 at about 01:00 P.M., the complainant along with his office subordinate, visited the premises of the accused No.2, namely M/s. Buddy Beverages Pvt. Ltd., situated at H.No.8-2-108/7, Sy.No.57A/1, G.N.Reddy Godowns, Hastinapuram, Sagar Road, L.B. Nagar Circle, Hyderabad. The complainant secured the presence of a mediator for the purpose of conducting inspection of the said premises. During the course of inspection, the complainant introduced himself as Food Safety Officer, East Zone, L.B. Nagar Circle, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad, to the accused No.1, who was found to be the Store In-charge of the said firm and engaged in its business operations. Upon inspection, the complainant found 4,224 bottles (353 cartons) of Aquafina Packaged Drinking Water kept for sale which is used for human consumption, along with other food articles, namely various soft drinks of Pepsico Company. Entertaining suspicion regarding the said packaged drinking water, the complainant collected samples and issued a Form-VA notice to the accused No.1, informing him that the sample of Aquafina Packaged Drinking Water would be forwarded to the State Food Laboratory, Hyderabad, for analysis. Upon analysis, the Public Analyst opined that the said sample was unsafe. Hence, the accused are alleged to have committed the aforesaid offence and are liable for prosecution.

04. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the prosecution has failed to adhere to the mandatory procedure prescribed under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. It is submitted that, in terms of Section 77 of the Act, the limitation period for launching prosecution is one year from the date of commission of the alleged offence. However, in the present case, there has been an inordinate and unexplained delay in filing the complaint. No reasons have been recorded by the Commissioner of Food Safety to justify the delay in initiating prosecution. It is further contended that the analysis was conducted in a non-accredited laboratory, and therefore, the report of the Food Analyst is legally invalid and cannot be relied upon.

05. With the above submissions, while praying for quashment of proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.4 and 3, he relied upon a decision in Dharampalsatyapal Limited through its Authorized representative, Shivakumar V.R. v. State of Kerala represented by PP and another wherein at Paragraph Nos.11 to 15 it was held that:

“11. Thus, the only reason mentioned to explain the delay is the procedural and administrational delay. There is a complete absence of any explanation of what is the procedural delay. No material has been referred to in the order of the Commissioner to explain the nature of the administrational delay or the factors responsible for such a delay.

12. The words 'procedural and administrational delay' are too vague and obscure terms to be regarded as an explanation or as reasons for delay. Those terms cannot signify a reason and are only broad terminologies used to denote a title for the delay and not anything of relevance or significance. When the statute expressly requires reasons to be stated in writing, it mandates a precise reference to th