Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rahul Taneja vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 November, 2025
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:30460
1 MSA-8-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 13th OF NOVEMBER, 2025
MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL No. 8 of 2024
RAHUL TANEJA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Harshad Bahirani, Advocate for the appellants.
Shri S.S.Kushwaha, Government Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 2/State.
ORDER
This miscellaneous second appeal, under section 71(6) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 ( for short "the FSSA" ) has been filed against the order dated 23/7/2024 passed by VIII District Judge, Gwalior in RCA number 202/2023, as well as, order dated 25/8/23 passed by Adjudicating Officer/ Additional District Magistrate, Gwalior in Case No. Q/ Food Safety/ 161/2021.
2. Facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal, in short, are that on 5/1/2021 at about 4:00 p.m. the premises of appellant was searched and samples of SS Brand Blended Edible Vegetable Oil (packed) 4 bottles of 500 ml each, 2 litres of oil taken from a container of 15 kg containing White Gold Soybean Refined Cooking Oil (packed), 2 litres of Blended Edible Vegetable Oil (loose) from one tank and 2 litres of Refined Rice Bran oil (loose) from another tank, total worth Rs. 1208/- were collected. Sample of Blended Edible Vegetable Oil was found to be substandard. Similarly, SS Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 27-11-2025 18:03:26 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:30460 2 MSA-8-2024 Brand Blended Edible Vegetable Oil was also found to be substandard and misbranded. Accordingly, by notice dated 18/5/2021, the report was forwarded to the appellant and information was also given that as per the provisions of section 46( 4) of the FSSA and as per Rule 2.4.6 of The Food Safety and Standard Rules 2011, appellant can file an appeal before the Designated Officer for referring the matter to the referral food laboratory as notified by the Food Authority for opinion. However, no appeal was filed. Accordingly, a complaint was filed. A show cause notice was issued and the appellant filed his reply on 25/11/2021 and thereafter the case was fixed for recording of departmental witnesses on 8/12/21. On 8/12/21, the case was adjourned for 23/12/21. On 23/12/21, 6/1/22 and 21/1/22, counsel for the appellant did not appear. The evidence of the Food Safety Officer was recorded on 21/1/22 and the case was fixed for cross examination. Thereafter on 8/2/22, 21/2/22, 7/3/22 and 31/3/22, the case was adjourned for cross examination. On 25/4/22, the FSO appeared through video conferencing. However, time was granted for cross examination. Thereafter the case was adjourned up to 17/4/23. On 17/4/23, counsel for the appellant was not present whereas the FSO was present, accordingly right of appellant to cross examine the FSO was closed on 17/4/23 and the case was fixed for final arguments. By order dated 16/8/23, it was directed that the counsel for appellant, if so desires, may file the written arguments and ultimately by order dated 25/8/23, final order was passed and a penalty of Rs.50,000/- each was imposed under sections 51 and 52 of FSSA.
3. Being aggrieved by the said order, appellant preferred an appeal Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 27-11-2025 18:03:26 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:30460 3 MSA-8-2024 which has been partially allowed by the appellate Court and conviction of appellant for offence under section 26 read with 52 of FSSA was set aside, whereas conviction of the appellant under sections 26 read with 51 of FSSA was maintained and a penalty of Rs.50,000/- was also maintained.
4. Challenging the orders passed by the Court/ Adjudicating Authority, it is submitted by counsel for the appellant that as per rule 2.4.2(5) of The Food Safety and Standard Rules 2011, the food analyst was required to send the report within a period of 14 days of receipt of sample, but in the present case, the sample was received by the lab on 11/1/21 and the tests were conducted from 17/3/21 to 3/4/21. Since the report was not sent within a period of 14 days from the date of receipt of sample, therefore, the report is vitiated.
5. Considered the submissions made by counsel for the appellant.
6. Section 46 of the FSSA reads as under:-
46. Functions of Food Analyst. - (1) On receipt of a package containing a sample for analysis from a Food Safety Officer or any other person, the Food Analyst shall compare the seal on the container and the outer cover with specimen impression received separately and shall note the conditions of the seal thereon:
Provided that in case a sample container received by the Food Analyst is found to be in broken condition or unfit for analysis, he shall within a period of seven days from the date of receipt of such sample inform the Designated Officer about the same and send requisition to him for sending second part of the sample. (2) The Food Analyst shall cause to be analysed such samples of article of food as may be sent to him by Food Safety Officer or by any other person authorised under this Act. (3) The Food Analyst shall, within a period of fourteen days from the date of receipt of any sample for analysis, send--
(i) where such sample is received under section 38 or section 47, to the Designated Officer, four copies of the report indicating Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 27-11-2025 18:03:26 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:30460 4 MSA-8-2024 the method of sampling and analysis; and
(ii) where such sample is received under section 40, a copy of the report indicating the method of sampling and analysis to the person who had purchased such article of food with a copy to the Designated Officer:
Provided that in case the sample cannot be analysed within fourteen days of its receipt, the Food Analyst shall inform the Designated Officer and the Commissioner of Food Safety giving reasons and specifying the time to be taken for analysis. (4) An appeal against the report of Food Analyst shall lie before the Designated Officer who shall, if he so decides, refer the matter to the referral food laboratory as notified by the Food Authority for opinion."
7. From plain reading of this section, it is clear that sending of report within 14 days is not mandatory, but by assigning reasons, the report can be sent at a later stage also. After the report was received, an information was also given to the appellant that if he so desires then he can prefer an appeal under section 46(4) of FSSA and may pray for referral of the sample to the referral food laboratory. No such appeal was filed. When the FSO appeared before the Adjudicating Officer for recording of his evidence, counsel for appellant was absent. In spite of that, multiple opportunities were granted to cross-examine the FSO. Even then, appellant failed to cross-examine the FSO.
8. Under these circumstances, this Court is of considered opinion that once the appellant has failed to avail the opportunity of filing an appeal in spite of specific information given by the competent Authority, then merely because the report could not be sent by the food analyst within a period of 14 days of the date of receipt of sample, it cannot be said to be fatal to the prosecution case. Since the Blended Edible Vegetable Oil was found to be Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 27-11-2025 18:03:26 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:30460 5 MSA-8-2024 substandard vide report of Food Analyst (Ex.P/24) and the SS brand Blended Edible Vegetable Oil was also found to be substandard vide report of the Food Analyst (Ex.P/28), this Court is of considered opinion that the appellate Court as well as the adjudicating Authority did not commit any mistake by convicting the appellant under section 26(2)(ii) read with S.51 of FSSA.
9. As no infirmity could be pointed out by counsel for appellant, accordingly this miscellaneous second appeal fails and is, hereby, dismissed.
(G. S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE (and) Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 27-11-2025 18:03:26