22-APL-611-21.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.611 OF 2021

Sanatkumar K. Jain

… Applicant

Vs

The State of Maharashtra

... Respondents

…

Mr. K.H.Parekh i/by Mhatre & Associates for the

Applicant.

Mr. S.S.Hulke, APP for the Respondent-State.

CORAM : SANDEEP K. SHINDE J.

DATE : 16

^th SEPTEMBER, 2021.

(Through Video Conferencing)

ORAL JUDGMENT:

Heard.

2

Rule.

3

With consent of the learned counsel for the

parties, matter is taken up for fnal hearing forthwith.

Shivgan 1/8

SHAMBHAVI

NILESH

SHIVGAN

Digitally signed by

SHAMBHAVI

NILESH SHIVGAN

Date: 2021.09.18

15:49:04 +0530

22-APL-611-21.odt

4

Food Safety Ofcer, Raigad Food and Drug

Administration, Raigad, prosecuted applicant, Deputy

General Manager of M/s. Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd.

(Accused No.3-Company) for alleged violation of the

provisions of Section 26(2)(i) and Section 20 read with 3(1)

(zz)(xii) punishable under Sections 59 and 66 of the Food

Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and Food Safety and

Standards (Food Products and Standards and Food

Additives) Regulations, 2011.

5

The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alibag at

District: Raigad issued the process on 15^th July, 2015.

Feeling aggrieved by this order, the applicant (Accused

No.1) has approached this Court under Section 482 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

6

Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and

the learned Prosecutor for the State.

Shivgan 2/8

22-APL-611-21.odt

7

The learned counsel for the applicant would

submit that, where an ofence under the Food Safety and

Standards Act, 2006 (‘Act’ for short) has been committed by

the company, concern head or person in-charge of the

establishment or branch or unit, ‘nominated’ by the

company, is responsible for food safety and shall be liable

for contravention in respect of such establishment, branch

or unit. Thus, the learned counsel would rely on the 1^st

proviso to Section 66 of the Act. It is submitted that the

company has nominated Mr. Amod Patil in terms of 1^st

proviso to Section 66 read with Rule 2.5 of the Rules, who

shall be responsible for food safety. The learned counsel has

drawn my attention to Rule 2.5 of the Food Safety and

Standards Rules, 2011 and Form No.(ix) dated 21^st

February, 2014. Form No.(ix) shows that Amod Vilasrao Patil

(accused no.2) has been appointed/nominated as person in-

charge of the establishment of the company at Village:

Isambe, Savroli, Taluka: Khopoli, Dist: Raigad, responsible

Shivgan 3/8

22-APL-611-21.odt

for food safety. Besides, the learned counsel has also

invited my attention to the resolution passed in the meeting

of Board of Directors held on 13^th February, 2014 vide which

Mr. Amod Patil was appointed as a nominee of the company

for the plant at Village: Isambe under Section 66 of the Act

and Rules on behalf of the company. It is, argued although

the applicant is Deputy General Manager of the company,

and allegedly, looking after Sales Division, there are no

pleadings that the applicant was entrusted with the quality

control of company’s product and/or control of day-to-day

afairs of the company.

8

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor does not

dispute a fact, that Mr. Amod Patil, is nominee of the

company. Section 66 of the Food and Safety and Standards

Act, 2006 reads as under:

“66. Offenfe by nompaeife.–(1) Whfrf ae

offenf uedefr thie Ant whinh hae bffe

nommittfd