SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K.KARTHIKEYAN, AGED 45 YEARS – Appellant
Versus
FOOD SAFETY OFFICER – Respondent
CRL OP 4839/2017



Advocates:
['M/S R NALLIYAPPAN', 'PRIVATE NOTICE PERMITTED', '', 'PROOF NOT FILED ON RESPONDENT', 'ADDL TYPED SET FILED']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATE: 16.11.2021

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATISH KUMAR

Crl.O.P.No. 4839 of 2017

and

Crl.M.P.Nos.3609 and 3610 of 2017

1.K.Karthikeyan

2.M.Kannupaiyan ...Petitioners/ Accused

Versus

Food Saftey Officer,

Suramangalam Zone - I,

Food Safety and Drug Administrative Department,

Food Safety Division.

Old Nattanmani Building,

Salem - 636 001.

... Respondent/Complainant

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C

to call for the records with respect to the complaint filed by

the respondent herein in S.T.C.No.613/2016 on the file of the

Judicial Magistrate III, Salem.

For Petitioners : Mr.R.Nalliyappan

For Respondent : Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar.

Government Advocate (Crl.side)

ORDER

This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in

S.T.C.No.613/2016 based on the complaint filed by the Food

Safety Officer for the offences under Sections 48 and 59(1) of

Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.

2. Heard the learned counsel for petitioners and the

learned counsel for respondent.

3. The main contention of the learned counsel for

petitioners is that there is a violation of Section 42 of Food

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and the notice has not been given

at the time of lifting the sample and also no opportunity has

been given to have a second sample analysis.

4. On the contrary, it is the case of the prosecution

that the very same complaint itself indicate that at that time

of lifting the sample itself, notice was served as per Section

42 of the Act. Therefore, whether the notice has been served or

not while lifting the sample is a factual aspect, which cannot

be gone into by this Court at this stage and this Court cannot

make a rowing enquiry. Therefore, this Court does not find any

material to quash the case pending in S.T.C.No.613/2016 on the

file of Judicial Magistrate III, Salem.

5. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is

dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions

are closed.

Sd/-

Assistant Registrar(CS-VII)

//True Copy//

Sub Assistant Registrar

gba/gpa

To

1. The Judicial Magistrate III

Salem.

2. The Food Saftey Officer,

Suramangalam Zone - I,

Food Safety and Drug Administrative Department,

Food Safety Division.

Old Nattanmani Building,

Salem - 636 001.

3. Do Thro The Chief Judicial Magistrate

Salem

4. The Public Prosecutor

High Court, Madras 104.

Crl.O.P.No. 4839 of 2017

and

Crl.M.P.Nos.3609 and 3610 of 2017

SP(29/11/2021)

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top