Madhya Pradesh High Court
Firm Parle Agro Pvt. Ltd. vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 September, 2025
Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
Bench: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:42339
1 MSA-7-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
ON THE 3 rd OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL No. 7 of 2024
FIRM PARLE AGRO PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Jaideep Sirpurkar - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Ramji Pandey - Govt. Advocate for respondent/State.
ORDER
This misc. second appeal has been preferred by the appellants challenging the judgment of remand dated 29.06.2024 passed by Second District Judge, Raisen in RCA No.04/2023 reversing the order dated 29.12.2022 passed by Nyay Nirnayak Adhikari (Additional District Magistrate), District Raisen, in Case No.013/Sa-147/AKL/2022-23, whereby Additional District Magistrate by holding the appellants guilty under the Provisions of Food Safety and Standards (Packaging and Labelling) Regulations, 2011 imposed a penalty of Rs.50,000/- and upon filing civil appeal before the first appellate Court, the order dated 29.12.2022 has been set aside and the matter has been remanded for fresh decision after recording evidence of the parties in respect of their rival contentions.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the offence is said to have taken place on 30.04.2019 and the Additional District Magistrate took Signature Not Verified Signed by: SATTYENDAR NAGDEVE Signing time: 9/4/2025 6:27:59 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:42339 2 MSA-7-2024 cognizance of the same after a period of three years, which in the light of Section 77 of the Food Safety & Standards Act, 2006 was not permissible because for taking cognizance there is a period of one year from the date of commission of an offence. He submits that Additional District Magistrate and First appellate Court both have committed an illegality in passing the impugned order/judgment of remand without taking into consideration said aspect of the matter and on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the alleged offence could not have been attributed to the appellants. With these submissions he prays for admission of the misc. second appeal.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent supports the impugned judgment of remand and prays for dismissal of the second appeal.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. Against the order dated 29.12.2022 imposing the penalty, passed by Nyay Nirnayak Adhikari (Additional District Magistrate), the appellants preferred Regular Civil Appeal before Second District Judge, Raisen who taking into consideration the fact that after filing reply to show cause notice, the Additional District Magistrate directly passed the order without affording any opportunity of adducing evidence to any of the parties to the litigation, set aside the impugned order dated 29.12.2022 passed by Additional District Magistrate, remanding the matter to decide afresh in accordance with the law, after recording evidence of the parties.
6. Upon due consideration of the entire material available on record including the proviso appended to Section 77 of the Act of 2006, this Court does not find any illegality in the judgment of remand passed by first Signature Not Verified Signed by: SATTYENDAR NAGDEVE Signing time: 9/4/2025 6:27:59 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:42339 3 MSA-7-2024 appellate Court.
7. Resultantly, this misc. second appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
8. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL) JUDGE SN Signature Not Verified Signed by: SATTYENDAR NAGDEVE Signing time: 9/4/2025 6:27:59 PM