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

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - KALABURAGI BEN
M/S ITC LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
FOOD SAFETY INSPECTOR – Respondent
WP 207484 2015



1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

KALABURAGI BENCH

DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JULY, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR

WRIT PETITION NO.207484/2015 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

M/s. ITC Limited

No.37, Jawaharlal Nehru Road

Kolkata – 700071

Through its authorized representative

Shri Murali Ganesan

Vice President – Finance, Foods Business

Division, ITC Limited, At No.18, Banaswadi

Main Road, Maruthiseva Nagar

Bengalore - 560005

… Petitioner

(By Sri Uday Holla, Senior Advocate for

Sri Shivashankar H. Manur, Advocate)

AND:

1.

Food Safety Inspector

Department of the Food Safety

And Standards, Vijayapura

Vijayapura District-586101

2.

Designated Officer

Department of the Food Safety

And Standards, Vijayapura

2

Vijayapura District-586101

… Respondents

(By Sri Gururaj V. Hasilkar, HCGP)

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

praying to issue a writ of certiorari or any other

appropriate writ or order or direction quashing the order

dated 25.11.2015 passed in C.C.No.307/037/226/2015-16

on

the

file

of

Additional

District

Magistrate

cum

Adjudicating Authority, Vijayapura (Annexure-A) and issue

any other appropriate writ, order or direction as this Court

may deem fit.

This writ petition having been heard and reserved for

Orders on 15.07.2021, coming on for ‘Pronouncement of

Orders’ this day, the Court made the following:

O R D E R

The petitioner has filed this petition under Article

226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482

of Cr.P.C. for quashing the order dated 25.11.2015

passed in C.C.No.307/037/226/2015-16 on the file of

Additional

District

Magistrate

cum

Adjudicating

Authority, Vijayapura.

3

2.

The factual matrix leading to the case are

that the petitioner is a Company within the meaning of

Companies Act, 2013 and is manufacturing and

marketing

several

variants

products

including

Sunfeast Yippee Noodles viz., Classic Masala, Magic

Masala and Chinese Masala. It is alleged that accused

No.1

was

a

distributor

of

the

food

packets

manufactured by the present petitioner. It is also

alleged that on 11.06.2015, the complainant has

suspected that Sunfeast Yippee Noodles Magic Masala

is adulterated and thereafter he has approached

accused No.1 and purchased a packet by issuing Form

No.V-A for Rs.376.01 paisa and obtained a receipt. It

is alleged that thereafter a mahazar was also drawn at

the spot. Subsequently, one sample was sent to

Divisional Food Laboratory at Belgaum and on

23.06.2015, the report of the Chemical Expert was

received,

wherein,

it

is

submitted

that

it

is

4

‘misbranded’.

Thereafter,

on

10.08.2015,

the

complainant has issued notice to accused No.1

seeking details of the owner and storer of the

misbranded products and the said information was

provided on 17.07.2015. It is alleged that on

10.08.2015, the complainant has reported to accused

No.1 that he can get tested the second sample out of

four samples to any other lab and get it tested by

paying requisite necessary fees as per Rule 2.4.(6) of

the

Food

Safety

and

Standards

Rules,

2011.

However, accused No.1 has reported that he is not

interested in this regard and thereafter a prosecution

was made before a Designated Officer i.e., Additional

District Commissioner/Magistrate, Vijayapur. The

present petitioner was accused No.3 and he has filed

objections contending that the complaint copy was not

furnished to him and no reasons were given by the

Food Analyst as to what is the reason for holding

5

sample as ‘misbranded’. Further, it is also alleged

that before taking sample, he was not given any

notice and it was not collected in his presence. The

sanction was also challenged and further it is alleged

that the Food Analyst Report itself discloses that it

complied all the requirements and without verificatio

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