Madras High Court
S.Dheen vs The Food Safety Officer on 9 October, 2020
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19355 of 2016
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 09.10.2020
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19355 of 2016
and
Crl.M.P.(MD)No.9712 of 2016
S.Dheen ...Petitioner
Vs.
The Food Safety Officer
Code No.118,
Food Safety and Drug Administration Department,
Thiruparangundram Taluk,
Madurai District. ... Respondent
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Code of
Criminal Procedure, to call for the records pertaining to the private
Complaint in C.C.No.389 of 2015 pending before the Learned Judicial
Magistrate No.VI, Madurai, dated 22.06.2015 filed under sections 52,
59(i) and 63 of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and Quash the same
as illegal.
For Petitioners : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy
For Respondent : Mr.K.Suyambulinga Bharathi,
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
http://www.judis.nic.in
1/8
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19355 of 2016
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the private Complaint in C.C.No.389 of 2015 pending before the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai, dated 22.06.2015 filed under sections 52, 59(i) and 63 of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a sole accused in the complaint lodged by the respondent herein, for the offences punishable under Sections 52, 59(i) and 63 of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. He would further submit that the learned Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance on the complaint lodged by the respondent on 22.06.2015 and the cause of auction arose to file a complaint on 12.07.2014 and as such a complaint itself barred by the limitation as per Section 77 of the Limitation Act.
3. The learned Government Advocate (crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police submitted that the respondent has filed a complaint as against the petitioner as per sections 52, 59(i) and 63 of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. The respondent had drawn a sample of water stored in water bottles in the name of “GEM VICTORY PACKAGED http://www.judis.nic.in 2/8 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19355 of 2016 DRINKING WATER” for analysis and the same was sent to the food analysis laboratory, Madurai for analysis. On receipt of the report, dated 25.07.2014 and the report revealed that the product was unsafe and misbranded and as it is not labeled in accordance with law requirements and requests of the Food Safety and Standards labeling Act 2006 and Rules 2011 and the complaint was filed on 25.06.2015 well within a period of one year from the date of cause of action of namely; 12.07.2014. He further submitted that on receipt of the complaint the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance on 18.12.2015 and issued summons to the petitioner herein. Since the complaint was lodged within the time it is not barred by Limitation. He further submitted that even assuming for limitation purpose the date of cognizance had taken for consideration there is a provision for filing a condone delay petition. Therefore, he objects dismissal of the quash petition.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (criminal side) appearing for the respondent police.
http://www.judis.nic.in 3/8 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19355 of 2016
5. It is seen from the records that the petitioner is a sole accused and the complaint lodged by the respondent herein for the offences under Sections 52, 59(i) and 63 of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. The respondent alleged that the petitioner is running a drinking water company being in the name of style of “GEM VICTORY PACKAGED DRINKING WATER”. On inspection, a sample was collected and the same was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Madurai and received a report from the analysist, dated 25.07.2014. A sample which was drawn from the petitioner's company under Section 3(1)(zz) of the Food Safety and Standard Act 2006 Regulation 2.10.8 of the Food Safety and Standard (Food Products Standard and Food Additibes) Regulations-2011 and Section 52. It is also being misbranded and it is not labeled under Food Safety and Standard Act 2006 and Regulation 2.2.2 (8) & 9 & 2.4.5(36) of the Food Safety and Standards (Packing and Labelling) Regulation 2011 and Section 59(i). The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner only raised a ground that the complaint itself was barred by 77 of the Food Safety Act.
6. On perusal of complaint, the complaint was filed on 22.06.2015 and the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance on 18.12.2015 and http://www.judis.nic.in 4/8 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19355 of 2016 issued summons to the petitioner herein. The cause of auction arose on 12.07.2014 and the respondent received analysis report on 25.07.2014 and filed a complaint on 29.06.2015. Therefore, the complaint was filed in very much in time. After on receipt of the complaint the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance and issued summons to the petitioner herein. Therefore, the petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.
7. In view of the discussion, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.389 of 2015 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai. The personal appearance of the petitioner is dispensed with and he shall be represented by a counsel. However, the petitioner shall be present before the Court at the time of furnishing of copies, framing charges, questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and at the time of passing judgment. However, the trial Court is directed to dispose the C.C.No.389 of 2015 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
http://www.judis.nic.in 5/8 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19355 of 2016
8. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
09.10.2020 Internet: Yes/No Index : Yes/No ksa Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned. http://www.judis.nic.in 6/8 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19355 of 2016 To The Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai.
http://www.judis.nic.in 7/8 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19355 of 2016 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J, ksa Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19355 of 2016 09.10.2020 http://www.judis.nic.in 8/8