Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Vijay Kumar on 23 November, 2019
Author: Sunil Kumar Awasthi
Bench: Sunil Kumar Awasthi
M.Cr.C. No.10540/2017 1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice S.K. Awasthi
M.Cr.C. No.10540/2017
The State of Madhya Pradesh
vs.
Vijay Kumar & Ors.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Gaurav Kumar Verma, learned Public Prosecutor for the
applicant/State.
Shri Vinayak Balchandani, learned counsel for the respondent
No.2.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
(Passed on 23/11/2019) Applicant/State has preferred this application under Section 378(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "The Code") for grant of leave to appeal against the judgment dated 22/02/2017 passed by Food Safety Appellate Tribunal, Indore in Criminal Appeal No. 645/2018, whereby the respondent No.1 has been acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 26(2)(II) of the Food Safety and Standards Rule 2006 (in brevity 'FSS Rules') read with Sections 50, 52 and 58 of FSS Rule, 2011; whereas the respondent No.2 has been acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 26(2)(II) and 27(2)(E) of the FSS Rules 2006 read with Sections 52 and 58 of the FSS Rules, 2011.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 11/07/2012, Food Safety Officer, Indore, Rajesh Jaiswal Purchased 2 Kgs. of "corn mill " from the shop of Ms. Zubilant Food Ltd. Old Palasiya, Navneet Tower, Indore and one counter part of sample under sealed cover was sent to Food Analyst, States Food Laboratory, Bhopal on 24/07/2012. Food Analyst, Bhopal vide its report dated 24/07/2015 opined that the said sample is miss-branded because best before was declared in small letters on outer label not in capital letters and format . Respondent No.1 is the nominee of Ms. Jubilant Food Works Ltd. 20-A, Old Palasiya, Navneet Tower, Indore; whereas the respondent No.2 is registered Office of Ms. Jubilant Food Works Ltd. 20-A, Old Palasiya, Navneet Tower, Indore. Thereafter, Food Safety Officer, Indore filed a complaint against the respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 26(2)(II) read with Sections 52 and 58 of the FSS Rules. Adjudicating Officer, Indore issued M.Cr.C. No.10540/2017 2 notice to the respondents and other accused persons and after hearing both the parties, Adjudicating Officer observed that it is established that best before was declared in small pattern letters in outer label, they were liable to pay penalty as envisaged under Sections 52 and 58 of the FSS Rules and Regulations and vide order dated 30/05/2015 imposed the penalty on the respondents and other accused persons.
3. All the accused persons challenged the above order of Adjudicating Officer, Indore before the Food Safety Appellate Tribunal, Indore pleaded that the impugned order was passed without considering the facts and evidence available on record and without appreciating the law as applicable. It is also submitted that information (best before) had been printed in small letters, therefore, substantial compliance of Rule 2-2-2-10(1) of FSS Rules and Regulations has been made as the required information was printed on the outer label of the said product and no prejudice has been caused to the consumer of the product. Thus, prosecution launched against the accused persons was unwarranted.
4. After considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and the material available on record, Food Safety Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal and held that there was substantial compliance of Rule 2-2-2-10(1) of the FSS Act in the present case, therefore, the accused persons cannot be held guilty for violating the said rules. In addition to that notice under Section 46 read with Rule 2.4.6 of the Act was also not sent to the respondents. Hence, the respondents could not exercise their right to appeal, therefore, penalties imposed by the Adjudicating Officer upon the respondents are set aside.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that appellate Authority committed error in setting aside penalty imposed upon the respondents because respondent No.1 is the nominee of Ms. Jubilant Food Works Ltd. 20-A, Old Palasiya, Navneet Tower, Indore; whereas the respondent No.2 is the registered Office of Ms. Jubilant Food Works Ltd. 20-A, Old Palasiya, Navneet Tower, Indore. As per Food Analyst report, information (best before) was declared in small letters on outer label of the product instead of capital letters, therefore, the respondents have violated the Rule 2-2-2-10(1) of the FSS Act. Under these circumstances, learned Public Prosecutor prays for grant of leave to appeal against impugned judgment of acquittal.
6. According to the Regulation of 2.2.2.10(1) of the FSS Rules, it is M.Cr.C. No.10540/2017 3 required that declaration (best before) is mentioned in capital letters on the outer label of the packing. In the present case, undisputably declaration (best before) was not written in capital letters on outer label of the product but the it was printed in small letters, therefore, it can be said to be sufficient compliance of Rule 2.2.2.10(1) of FSS Rules and Regulations in the light of judgments passed in the case of M.D. Aqua Vs. State of Bihar & Another, 2011(1) FAC 265, Shri Om Industries Vs. State of Jharkhand, 2012 (2) FAC 8 and Jalaj Kumar Chatterjee Vs. State of Jharkhand, 2013(1) FAC 482. It is also found that notice under Section 46 read with Rule 2.4.6 of the Act was also not sent to the respondents. Hence, the respondents could not exercise their right to appeal.
7. In view of the re-appreciation of the entire evidence, I am of the considered view that Food Safety Appellate Tribunal has not committed any error in passing the judgment of acquittal of the respondents and other accused persons and setting aside the penalties imposed upon them by Adjudicating Officer, therefore, the findings recorded by the appellate Authority does not appear to be perverse, which required any interference by this Court. It is settled principles of law that if the trial Court, after due appreciation of the evidence, came to the conclusion of the finding of acquittal and normally if the finding is not perverse, it should not be interfered by the appellate Court. Accordingly, no grounds are available for grant of leave against the impugned judgment.
8. Resultantly, the petition filed on behalf of the applicant is dismissed accordingly.
(S.K. Awasthi)
skt Judge
Santosh Kumar Tiwari
2019.11.29 18:03:01 +05'30'
M.Cr.C. No.10540/2017 4