Madras High Court
Rajashekar Reddy Seelam vs The State on 9 October, 2025
Author: N. Sathish Kumar
Bench: N. Sathish Kumar
Crl.O.P.No.23594 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 09.10.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
Crl.O.P.No.23594 of 2025
and
Crl.M.P.No.16090 of 2025
Rajashekar Reddy Seelam
Holding the post of Director,
M/s.Hita Life Ventures Private Limited,
H.No.#6-3-1109/1, 4th Floor, Jewel Pawani Tower,
Raj Bhavan Road, Somajiguda,
Hyderabad,
Telengana – 500 082. ... Petitioner
Vs.
The State
Represented by its Food Safety Officer,
A.Chidambaram,
No.33, West Jones Road,
Saidapet,
Chennai – 600 015. ... Respondent
Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita to call for the records in C.C.No.1116 of 2023 on
the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate IX, Saidapet, Chennai, and to quash
the same, insofar as the petitioner is concerned.
Page 1 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2025 08:28:06 pm )
Crl.O.P.No.23594 of 2025
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Harikrishnan
For Respondent : Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan,
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
Challenging the private complaint filed by the respondent/Food Safety Officer in C.C.No.1116 of 2023 on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate IX, Saidapet, Chennai, for the offences under Sections 3(1)(zx), 3(1)(zz)(viii) & (xi), 26(1)(2)(i)(ii) & (v) & 27(1) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” for brevity) against A1 to A3; Sections 3(1)(zx), 3(1)(zz)(viii) & (xi), 26(1)(2)(i)(ii) & (v), 27(1) & 27(2)(c) of the Act against A4 & A5; Sections 3(1)(zx), 3(1)(zz)(viii) & (xi), 26(1)(2)(i)(ii) & (v) & 27(1) of the Act against A6 to A9, the seller/A2 has filed the present Criminal Original Petition.
2.It is the case of the complainant/Food Safety Officer that, on 24.12.2020, he inspected the retail store of M/s.Hita Life Ventures Private Limited at Adyar and on examination, he had a suspicion that the Aloe Vera Syrup manufactured by M/s.Annai Aravindh Herbals (A4 and A5) Page 2 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2025 08:28:06 pm ) Crl.O.P.No.23594 of 2025 contained food additives and therefore, lifted samples of that syrup after following the procedure. Thereafter, the food sample was sent to the Food Analysis Laboratory at Thanjavur on 24.12.2020 and the same was received by the laboratory on 28.12.2020, and the other samples were sent to the Designated Officer. The Food Analyst sent a report on 28.10.2021 with a finding that the product contained “benzoic acid” higher than the permitted level, as a result of which, the product was declared as substandard and unsafe. The Designated Officer informed the accused persons that the food was found substandard and unsafe by letter dated 15.11.2021 and also informed of the right to file an appeal as against the report of the Food Analysis Laboratory, Thanjavur. Thereafter, after obtaining sanction, the complainant filed the present private complaint as against the retail seller, viz., M/s.Hita Life Ventures Private Limited (A1 to A3), marketing agent, viz., M/s.Annai Aravindh Herbals (A4 & A5) and the manufacturer of the product, viz., M/s.Annai Foods (A6 to A9) for the offences as stated supra. The complaint was taken on file by the learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, in C.C.No.1116 of 2023, challenging which, the Managing Director of the retail seller, viz., M/s.Hita Life Ventures Private Limited, who is arrayed as A2, has filed the present Criminal Original Page 3 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2025 08:28:06 pm ) Crl.O.P.No.23594 of 2025 Petition.
3.According to the petitioner (A2), he is the owner and Managing Director of the retail store, namely, M/s.Hita Life Ventures Private Limited. It is his contention that A1 was working as Manager of the store when the samples were taken and A1 was only responsible for the operations and day-to-day affairs of the retail store at Adyar, and the Aloe Vera Syrup is manufactured by A4 to A9. Therefore, the petitioner (A2) nor his company (A3) has any role in the manufacturing of the Aloe Vera Syrup. The role of the petitioner and his company is limited only to selling of the products which were manufactured by A4 to A9. According to the petitioner, the product was manufactured in October, 2020 and the packaging also shows the expiry details. It should be used before 12 months from the date of manufacturing. It is the contention of the petitioner that, in the present case, the product was manufactured in October, 2020 and the samples were taken on 24.12.2020 and the same were received by the laboratory on 28.12.2020. However, the sample was not analysed within a period of 14 days. The report of the Food Analyst has been sent only on 28.10.2021. The report also indicates that the samples were examined between Page 4 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2025 08:28:06 pm ) Crl.O.P.No.23594 of 2025 29.09.2021 and 12.10.2021. Meanwhile, the very letter dated 15.11.2021 was sent by the Designated Officer, 15 days after the expiry of the product. Hence, it is the contention of the petitioner that the right of appeal available to the petitioner under Section 46(4) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, will only be a futile exercise as the samples cannot be expected to have its original quality beyond the date of expiry. Therefore, it is his contention that his valuable right to appeal provided under the Statute, is lost. Hence, he seeks quashment of the proceedings as not maintainable.
4.Whereas, it is the contention of the respondent/complainant that certain consumer-oriented terms such as “expiry date”, “best before date” “use-by date” and other labelling expressions are primarily intended for marketability and consumer guidance and may not be determinative of a sample's fitness for scientific analysis under statutory process. According to him, there is a difference between “food” and “sample” within the statutory framework. According to him, the food article being unfit for consumption is different from a food article being unfit for analysis. After shelf life of a food article, generally called as best before date or even expiry date (which are quite short as the food articles are ordinarily Page 5 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2025 08:28:06 pm ) Crl.O.P.No.23594 of 2025 perishable in nature), the food article may become “unfit for consumption”. At the same time, it may also become unfit for analysis on some parameters (like rancidity, moisture, ash content, broken grains, extraneous matter, damaged grains, etc.), but still it may not be rendered “unfit for analysis” on all the counts, particularly those which are not prone to changes with passage of time (like unpermitted artificial synthetic colours, or BT Test or presence of mineral oil, etc.). It is his contention that if there is some prohibited substance in the food article which would not develop with the passage of time or there is absence of mandatory ingredient in a food article which would not vanish with passage of time, then irrespective of huge delay, the article would still remain fit for analysis though technically it may not remain fit for human consumption after lapse of some period of time. Therefore, he opposed the petition.
5.Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly would submit that the valuable right of appeal is lost since there was a delay in analysis of the food sample, which is in clear violation of Section 46(4) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. He has also placed reliance on the following judgments :
Page 6 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2025 08:28:06 pm ) Crl.O.P.No.23594 of 2025 i. Way Cool Foods & Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Food Safety Officer [Madras High Court, Crl.O.P.No.22575 of 2023, dated 22.02.2024] ii. Subramanian v. Food Safety Officer [Madras High Court, Crl.O.P.No.16418 of 2022, dated 03.08.2022]
6.I have perused the entire materials available on record.
7.The private complaint is mainly on the ground that the food is substandard. Admittedly, the Food Safety Officer has lifted samples on 24.12.2020; the date of manufacture of the product is in October, 2020 and it is marked in the label that it is best before 12 months. The sample was despatched to the laboratory on 24.12.2020 which has been received by the laboratory on 28.12.2020. As per Section 46(3) of the Act, the Food Analyst, within a period of 14 days from the date of receipt of sample, shall analyse the sample and send a report to the Designated Officer. However, in the event the sample cannot be analysed within 14 days from the date of receipt of the sample, the same shall be informed to the Designated Officer and the Commissioner of Food Safety, giving reasons for the delay and the specific time to be taken for analysis. Whereas, in the present case, the Page 7 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2025 08:28:06 pm ) Crl.O.P.No.23594 of 2025 report has been issued only on 28.10.2021, which is beyond the period of 14 days from the date of receipt of sample. Further, as against the report of the Food Analyst, an appeal lies before the Designated Officer and on filing of such appeal, the Designated Officer, if so decides, can refer the matter to the referral food laboratory as notified by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India. Section 42 of the Act deals with launching of prosecution. Section 42(2) of the Act makes it clear that, after receipt of the sample from the Food Safety Officer, the Food Analyst shall analyse the sample and send the analysis report mentioning the method of sampling and analysis within 14 days to Designated Officer. Admittedly, the sample has not been analysed within 14 days and the report has been sent only on 28.10.2021 and the same has been communicated on 15.11.2021 to the petitioner, which is 15 days beyond the expiry date of the syrup. Therefore, when the Aloe Vera Syrup itself has expired, then the filing of appeal under Section 46(4) of the Act and referring it to the laboratory for re-analysis will not serve any purpose. The shelf life of the food has already expired and therefore, the valuable right guaranteed under the Act has been lost.
8.This Court, in a similar case in Way Cool Foods & Products Pvt. Page 8 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2025 08:28:06 pm ) Crl.O.P.No.23594 of 2025 Ltd. v. Food Safety Officer [Crl.O.P.No.22575 of 2023, dated 22.02.2024], has held as follows :
“21.The Madhya Pradesh High Court has taken into consideration two definitions under the Food Safety and Standards (Packaging and Labelling) Regulations, 2011. The first definition that was taken into account is the definition of the term ”best before”. For proper appreciation, the definition is extracted hereunder:
1.2.1. “Best before” means the date which signifies the end of the period under any stated storage conditions during which the food shall remain fully marketable and shall retain any specific qualities for which tacit or express claims have been made and beyond that date, the food may still be perfectly safe to consume, though its quality may have diminished. However, the food shall not be sold if at any stage the product becomes unsafe. ...
23.After considering the above definitions, the Madhya Pradesh High Court came to a conclusion that even after the expiry date of the food, the quality and the safety attributes of the food may have diminished but however it does not become unsafe. The Court held that it is only an information given but it is not mandatory to use before six months. Having come to that conclusion, the Court found that the petitioners therein having not filed an appeal, cannot be heard to complain about the violation of Section 46(4) of the Act. The Court also made an observation to the effect that preservatives can be added to Page 9 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2025 08:28:06 pm ) Crl.O.P.No.23594 of 2025 the sample to keep it in a proper condition or be kept in a cool storage and thereby, even if the shelf life expires, the sample will not become sub standard. In view of the same, it was held that the food operator should have filed an appeal and worked out his remedy and having failed to do so, cannot turn around and question the prosecution launched against the petitioners.
24.With all due respects, this Court is not able to concur with the view that has been taken by the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The definitions that have been referred by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, on a close scrutiny, clearly shows that the quality of the food will diminish beyond the shelf life of the food product. Therefore, it may be safe to consume the food product but however there is no guarantee that the quality of the food product will not be diminished. It is also clear that after the shelf life period, the quality and the safety attributes of the food product may also diminish. The seminal question that arises for consideration is if a shelf life is given to a food product, it is mandatory that it should not be sold beyond the shelf life. If any food product is sold after the shelf life, that by itself will become an offence under the Act. This only means that the food product will lose its quality and also the safety attributes beyond the shelf period. If that is not so, there is no logic or meaning in giving a shelf life to a food product. When it comes to a food product, it should not be dealt with on the Page 10 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2025 08:28:06 pm ) Crl.O.P.No.23594 of 2025 basis of assumptions and surmises. It has a direct impact on the health of a person who consume the food product.
Therefore, once the shelf life comes an end, it must be safely taken that it will not be safe to consume that food product as it could have lost its quality and safety attributes.
25.If the above test is applied, the food product that is sent to the referral laboratory in the appeal after its shelf life will obviously be found to be lacking in quality. If such report is given by the referral laboratory, it will become very difficult to find out as to whether the report of the referral laboratory has confirmed the report of the food analyst or such report was given since the food product had lost its quality and safety attributes due to the expiry of its shelf life. Hence, no useful purpose will be served in referring the food product to the laboratory after its shelf life.
26.If the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court is taken to its logical end, it will only mean that the shelf life of a food product can be disregarded on the assumption that the food product is safe for consumption and in spite of the expiry of the shelf period, the food business operator must prefer an appeal with the referral laboratory. As stated above, the very basis on which the shelf life period is fixed for a food product will get defeated if this proposition is accepted. Hence, this Page 11 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2025 08:28:06 pm ) Crl.O.P.No.23594 of 2025 Court is not in agreement with the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court.”
9.Further, the definition of “food” also includes any substance, whether processed, partially processed or unprocessed, which is intended for human consumption and includes primary food to the extent defined in clause (zk), genetically modified or engineered food or food containing such ingredients, infant food, packaged drinking water, alcoholic drink, chewing gum, and any substance, including water used into the food during its manufacture, preparation or treatment but does not include any animal feed, live animals unless they are prepared or processed for placing on the market for human consumption, plants, prior to harvesting, drugs and medicinal products, cosmetics, narcotic or psychotropic substances.
10.Therefore, even as per the definition, the Aloe Vera Syrup in question comes within the definition of “food”. When the syrup comes within the definition of food, if the food expires, it is not fit for consumption. Therefore, after shelf life of the concerned food, no useful Page 12 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2025 08:28:06 pm ) Crl.O.P.No.23594 of 2025 purpose will be served in filing an appeal against the report of the Food Analyst. Having regard to the fact that the shelf life of the food in question has expired by the time communication was given to the petitioner by the Designated Officer, the very valuable right of filing appeal under Section 46(4) of the Act, is defeated. Therefore, it is in clear violation of Section 46(4) of the Act. Therefore, the prosecution as against the petitioner (A2) will not stand.
11.Therefore, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the complaint in C.C.No.1116 of 2023 on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate IX, Saidapet, Chennai, is quashed as against the petitioner. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
09.10.2025 mkn Internet : Yes Index : Yes / No Speaking order : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No Page 13 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2025 08:28:06 pm ) Crl.O.P.No.23594 of 2025 To
1.The Metropolitan Magistrate IX, Saidapet, Chennai.
2.The Food Safety Officer, No.33, West Jones Road, Saidapet, Chennai – 600 015.
3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
Page 14 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2025 08:28:06 pm ) Crl.O.P.No.23594 of 2025 N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
mkn Crl.O.P.No.23594 of 2025 Page 15 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2025 08:28:06 pm ) Crl.O.P.No.23594 of 2025 09.10.2025 Page 16 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2025 08:28:06 pm )