Himachal Pradesh High Court
Raghu Vakkiyal vs Of on 18 April, 2026
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
2026:HHC:12475
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr.MMO Nos.1296 & 1199 of 2022
.
Reserved on: 07.04.2026
Date of Decision: 18.04.2026
_______________________________________________________________________
1. Cr.MMO No.1296 of 2022
Raghu Vakkiyal .........Petitioner
Versus
of
State of Himachal Pradesh .......Respondent
2. Cr.MMO No.1199 of 2022
Raghu Vakkiyal
rt Versus
.........Petitioner
State of Himachal Pradesh .......Respondent
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? Yes.
_______________________________________________________________________
For the Petitioner: Mr. Janesh Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Batra and Ms.
Sonia Kukreja, Advocates, in both the petitions.
For the Respondent: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional
Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan and
Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General,
for State, in both the petitions.
_______________________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, J.
Since common questions of facts and law are involved in both the above captioned cases, this Court after having clubbed the ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2026 08:02:52 :::CIS 2026:HHC:12475 2 same, heard them together and are now being disposed of vide common judgment.
.
2. By way of above-captioned petitions filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioners for quashing of complaint cases bearing No.03/2016 & 02/2016 dated 16.03.2016, impugned orders dated 17.03.2017 & 23.04.2016 taking cognizance and of orders dated 03.01.2018 & 06.04.2018 framing notice and consequent proceedings in cases, both titled as Sate of H.P. Vs. Raghu Vakkiyal, rt registered under Section 59(1) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (for short, 'FSS Act').
3. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the pleadings as well as other material adduced on record by the respective parties are that Mr. Satish Thakur, Food Safety Officer, District Una, Himachal Pradesh, (complainant herein), inspected the premises of M/s Nestle India Pvt. Ltd. VPO Nangal Kalan, Tehliwal, Industrial Area, Tehsil Haroli, District Una, Himachal Pradesh, wherein he found that petitioner was conducting the business of manufacturing and selling of food articles inter alia Maggi Noodles etc. meant for human consumption.
After disclosure of identity, complainant served a notice to the petitioner declaring his intention to take samples of Maggi Noodles with its taste maker for the purpose of analysis and purchased four packets of 140 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2026 08:02:52 :::CIS 2026:HHC:12475 3 grams each as sample for analysis and thereafter, after having labeled and properly wrapped afore samples into thick papers, a paper seal was .
issued and signed by the designated officer. Signatures of the petitioner were taken on the labels as well as paper slip. Each packet was properly tied with strong thread and sealed with sealing wax and seal impression was put on each packet. One part of the sample along with memo in of Form VI was sent to the Food Analyst, International Testing Centre (ITC), Industrial Area, Phase-I, Panchkula, Haryana, for analysis, whereas rt three remaining parts along with two copies of Form VI were deposited in the office of the designated officer in a sealed packet for record.
4. On analysis, Food Analyst found samples of Maggi Noddles to be unsafe for human consumption vide reports No.F-06U1815 dated 13.06.2015/F-06U2715 dated 13.06.2015, which was received by the complainant from the office of Designated Officer, District Shimla. Food Analyst specifically opined in its report that the sample/food product does not conform to the norms as per the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (for short, 'FSSAI') with respect to the test at Sr. No.1 i.e. lead content exceeds the prescribed maximum limit of 2.5 ppm and on the basis of same, declared the sample product "Maggi Noodle with its taste maker" unsafe for human consumption.
::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2026 08:02:52 :::CIS2026:HHC:12475 4
5. Taking note of afore report submitted by Food Analyst, on 28.01.2016, Chief Medical Officer, Una, in exercise of powers under .
Section 30(2)(e) read with Section 42(4)(a) of the FSS Act ,while according sanction to launch prosecution against the petitioner in both the cases, further directed Food Safety Officer, i.e. complainant, to file complaint against the same. In the afore background, complaint against the of present petitioner came to be filed in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una, Annexure-A, which subsequently vide order dated rt 17.03.2017/23.04.2016, while taking cognizance of the allegations levelled in the complaint, issued summons against the petitioner. On 03.01.2018, afore Court framed notice of accusation against the petitioner in both the cases. In the afore background, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings praying therein to quash complaints, summoning orders and notice of accusation, detailed hereinabove.
6. I have heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused the record.
7. Before ascertaining the rival submissions made at the behest of parties to lis, this Court deems it fit to take note of certain material facts, which may be relevant for the adjudication of the case at hand.
::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2026 08:02:52 :::CIS2026:HHC:12475 5
8. In the month of January 2015, Maggi Noodles were sampled by food authorities in Barabanki, Uttar Pradesh and same was analysed .
in May 2015 at Referral Food Laboratory, Kolkata, where it was found that lead content in the product i.e. 17 ppm, was much higher than permitted limit i.e. 2.5 ppm. Since there was widespread media coverage and debates on the National TV and Newspapers around safety of Maggi of Noodles, CEO of FSSAI, vide order dated 25.05.2015 (Annexure E in Cr.MMO No.1199 of 2022), directed the Commissioners of Food Safety of rt all States to collect samples of Maggi Noodles and get them analysed by the accredited and notified laboratories. Pursuant to afore directions, samples of afore product were lifted and tested in almost all States of India in the State laboratories and private laboratories. On 05.06.2015, M/s Nestle voluntarily decided to withdraw the Maggi Noodles product off the shelves and stopped production and issued press release to that effect (Annexure F in Cr.MMO No.1199 of 2022).
9. Vide order dated 05.06.2015, (Annexure G in Cr.MMO No.1199 of 2022), FSSAI, relying upon various analysis reports received from the States, issued a ban order instructing the petitioner's company to withdraw and recall the alleged sample of Maggi Noodles variants and stop further production, processing, import distribution and sale of the said product with immediate effect. In June 2015, M/s Nestle filed writ ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2026 08:02:52 :::CIS 2026:HHC:12475 6 petition before the High Court of Bombay challenging the afore ban order. High Court of Bombay vide order dated 13.08.2015 set aside the .
ban order (Annexure H in Cr.MMO No.1199 of 2022). While setting aside ban order, High Court of Bombay held as under:
"- The Ban orders were violative of principles of natural justice.
- Laboratories where the products are to be tested under the FSS of Act are required to be both NABL Accredited as well as FSSAI Notified. The Twin condition test is to be satisfied as laid down by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court. The reports issued by the State rt Laboratories were held to be invalid as they did not meet the twin test. The Report of Referral Laboratory Calcutta was held to be not credible and invalid. Ban Order based on invalid reports was set aside.
- The tests were not conducted by accredited and notified laboratories as mandated under Section 43 of the FSS Act and proper sampling procedure as mandated under Section 47 of the FSS Act was also not followed.
- Bombay High Court in public interest directed fresh sampling of MAGGI Noodles and its analysis by three different accredited and notified laboratories. A total of 90 samples of Maggi Noodles covering six different available variants were sent to three mandated Laboratories (30 samples to each laboratory) for testing of Lead parameter. The report of analysis showed that the Lead levels were within the permissible limits."
10. In August 2015, based on same analysis report, on which ban was imposed, the Union of India filed a consumer complaint on behalf of people of India (in the nature of Class Action Suit) under the ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2026 08:02:52 :::CIS 2026:HHC:12475 7 Consumer Protection Act against the Nestle India Limited claiming damages worth ₹1200/- crores on account of selling unsafe food before .
the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short, 'NCDRC'). Vide interim order dated 15.10.2015, the NCDRC directed analysis of 13 samples, which were in possession of Department of Consumer Affairs, by Referral Laboratory CFTRI Mysore. Subsequently, of it also directed that out of seized stocks of Maggi Noodles in the custody of FSSAI, 16 samples be sent for testing the presence of lead in any form rt whatsoever and Monosodium Glutamate (MSG) including their quantity in the said samples at Export Inspection Agency, Egmore, Chennai.
11. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the orders passed by NCDRC, M/s Nestle India Limited filed petition before the Hon'ble Apex Court i.e. Civil Appeal No.14539 of 2015. FSSAI also preferred SLP against the judgment of Bombay High Court bearing SLP Civil No.33251 of 2015. Both the afore cases were taken-up together for hearing.
Hon'ble Apex Court called for and received the reports of 13 samples sent by NCDRC to Referral Laboratory i.e. CFTRI Mysore, where lead was found to be within prescribed maximum limit of 2.5 ppm (Annexure J in Cr.MMO No.1199 of 2022). Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 13.01.2016, ordered 16 samples taken from FSSAI to be analysed by CFTRI Mysore, and directed afore laboratory to apprise the Court ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2026 08:02:52 :::CIS 2026:HHC:12475 8 whether result of test report relating to lead and glutamic acid was within permissible limit or not and also whether test relating to glutamic .
acid includes test relating to MSG. Vide order dated 13.01.2016, Apex Court directed that the copies of result of analysis as well as opinion of CFTRI, Mysore, be provided to M/s Nestle Limited (Annexure K in Cr.MMO No.1199 of 2022.
of
12. Head of CSIR-CFTRI, Mysore, Dr. Asha Martin issued letter dated 16.03.2016 (Annexure M in Cr.MMO No.1199 of 2022) and rt provided comments as well as opinion with regard to the clarification sought by the Hon'ble Apex Court by way of order dated 13.01.2016. The letter, opinion of Director, CFTRI Mysore and test reports of CFTRI, Mysore, suggest that samples were tested on all parameters and thereafter the opinion of Director, CFTRI was given. The reports of 13 samples sent by NCDRC to CFTRI, Mysore, where lead was found to be within prescribed maximum limit of 2.5 ppm is at Annexure L in Cr.MMO No.1199 of 2022. In view of clear opinion given by Dr. Asha Martin, Head, Food Safety & Analytical Quality Control Laboratory, CSIR-CFTRI, an ISO 9001:2008; 14001:2004 and 17025:2005 (NABL), which is also a Referral Laboratory, Hon'ble Apex Court disposed of the Civil Appeal No.14539 of 2015, vide order dated 03.01.2019, inter alia holding that the report which has been received from CFTRI should be ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2026 08:02:52 :::CIS 2026:HHC:12475 9 the basis of adjudication of complaint before NCDRC. (Annexure M in Cr.MMO No.1199 of 2022).
.
13. SLP filed by FSSAI against the judgment of Bombay High Court was also dismissed vide order dated 21.03.2024, as a result thereof, judgment of Bombay High Court attained finality. Similarly, vide judgment dated 02.04.2024, NCDRC dismissed the complaint filed by of Union of India by holding that there is no evidence of deficiency in goods sold by Nestle India Limited. In view of result of analysis as well as rt opinion of Referral Food Laboratory, which is final, the issue of presence of lead or MSG in the alleged products, including the Food Analyst Report, which is subject matter of the present complaint under challenge, has been put to rest and has been settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the proceedings arising out of Civil Appeal. In afore background, quashing of complaints as well as summoning orders, detailed hereinabove, has been sought by the petitioner on the following grounds:
"- The issue finally stands settled by the analysis done at the directions of Apex Court and there is no doubt about the safety of Maggi Noodles.
- The reports received from CFTRI Laboratory a Referral laboratory holding that the samples tested were compliant to all the applicable parameters are final and supersede all the reports received from State and Private Laboratories by virtue of Section 46(4) of FSSAr/w Rule 2.4.5 of FSS Rules.::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2026 08:02:52 :::CIS
2026:HHC:12475 10
- The analysis reports in the present case having been superseded by Referral Laboratory there is no other evidence in .
this matter. The complaint is liable to be quashed.
- The complaint is filed against the petitioner as Nominee without making or arraying Company as accused. The prosecution of a Nominee or any other official of the company without arraying the company itself as an accused is not sustainable in law and liable be quashed.
of
- No sanction is taken against the company under Section 42 FSSA.
- Consent for prosecution by Chief Medical Officer, Una is bad in rt law. Section 42 FSSA mandates that sanction to prosecute has to be obtained from Commissioner of Food Safety. In the present case there is no consent to prosecute by Commissioner of food Safey. CMO who has accorded sanction was not authorised to do so. The complaint thus having been filed without mandatory sanction is liable to be quashed."
14. Besides above, it is also argued at the behest of petitioner that Food Analyst, International Testing Centre, Panchkula, where samples were analysed, was not competent to analyse Maggi Noodles for the presence of lead, since it was not accredited to analyse lead in food.
Since notification of the said laboratory under Section 43 of the Act lapsed on 04.06.2015 on account of expiry of its accreditation certificate, on the date of analysis i.e. 13.06.2015, the said laboratory was also not notified and as such, was not competent to conduct any test/analysis.
::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2026 08:02:52 :::CIS2026:HHC:12475 11
15. Pursuant to notices issued in the instant proceedings, respondent-State has filed reply, wherein facts, as have been noticed .
hereinabove, have been not disputed, rather stand admitted. Attempt has been made to defeat the claim of the petitioner on the ground of delay and laches. It is averred in the reply that since learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una, has taken cognizance on of 17.03.2017/23.04.2016 and present petition has been filed on 29.12.2022, same being barred by delay and laches deserves outright rt dismissal. Besides above, it is further averred in the reply that petition, as filed, is not maintainable as the criminal proceedings pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una, are in the nature of summons case and notice of accusation under Section 251 Cr.P.C. has already been framed on 03.01.2018 in both the complaints and trial has proceeded for recording the evidence of the prosecution. If the reply filed by respondents is read in its entirety, there is no specific denial to the grounds raised in the petition, rather attempt has been made to oppose the prayer made in the petition on very flimsy grounds.
16. It is not in dispute that samples were lifted and tested in almost all the States of India in the State laboratories and private laboratories in the month of May-June 2015, pursuant to directions issued by the Commissioner of Food Safety of all States. Since lead ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2026 08:02:52 :::CIS 2026:HHC:12475 12 content in the product i.e. Maggi Noodle was found much higher than the permitted limit, FSSAI, relying upon various analysis reports .
received from the States, issued a ban order instructing petitioner's company to withdraw and recall all the Maggi Noodles variant and stop further production, processing, import distribution and sale of the said product with immediate effect. It is also not in dispute that ban order of was subsequently laid challenge before the High Court of Bombay. High Court of Bombay, while holding ban orders to be issued in violation of rt principles of natural justice, held that laboratories where the products are to be tested under the FSS Act are required to be both NABL Accredited as well as FSSAI Notified. Since afore twin condition applied by Hon'ble Bombay High Court was not found to be satisfied, reports issued by the State Laboratories were held to be invalid as they did not meet the twin test. Since tests were not conducted by accredited and notified laboratories as mandated under Section 43 of the FSS Act and proper sampling procedure as mandated under Section 47 of the FSS Act was also not followed, Bombay High Court, in public interest, directed fresh sampling of Maggi Noodles and its analysis by three different accredited and notified laboratories. Report of analysis as was sought by Bombay High Court showed that lead levels were within the prescribed limit. Ultimately, orders passed by the NCDRC in consumer complaint ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2026 08:02:52 :::CIS 2026:HHC:12475 13 filed by Union of India as well as Bombay High Court, detailed hereinabove, came to be laid challenge before the Hon'ble Apex Court in .
Civil Appeal No.14539 of 2015. As has been taken note hereinabove, Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 13.01.2016, ordered 16 samples taken from FSSAI to be analysed by CFTRI Mysore, and directed afore laboratory to apprise the Court whether contents of lead and glutamic of acid was within permissible limit or not and also whether test relating to glutamic acid includes test relating to MSG. Since reports of 13 samples rt sent by NCDRC to Referral Laboratory i.e. CFTRI Mysore, suggested that lead content was within prescribed maximum limit of 2.5 ppm, Hon'ble Apex Court, having taken note of clear opinion given by Head, Food Safety & Analytical Quality Control Laboratory, CSIR-CFTRI, vide order dated 03.01.2019 held that the report which has been received from CFTRI should be the basis of adjudication of complaint before NCDRC, which subsequently dismissed the complaint filed by Union of India, holding that there is no evidence of deficiency in goods sold by Nestle.
17. Pursuant to aforesaid developments, complaints lodged against representatives of M/s Nestle India Limited in various States were withdrawn or dismissed, however, complaint lodged in the State of Himachal Pradesh is still continuing. Since lead in Maggi Noodles with its taste makers has been found to be within the prescribed limit of 2.5 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2026 08:02:52 :::CIS 2026:HHC:12475 14 ppm, coupled with the fact that samples were lifted from the factory of M/s Nestle India Limited in the State of Himachal Pradesh, pursuant to .
direction issued by the Commissioner of Food Safety in the month of May 2015, prosecution launched against the petitioner vide complaint, sought to be quashed, is not sustainable.
18. Though it came to be argued at the behest of respondent-
of State that sample drawn from the factory premises of M/s Nestle India Limited in the State of Himachal Pradesh were got tested/analysed from rt the International Testing Centre, Panchkula, which found the lead to be more than the prescribed limit, but afore submission deserves outright rejection in view of order dated 03.01.2019 passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.14539 of 2015, wherein it specifically came to be ruled that report which has been received from CFTRI should be the basis of adjudication of complaint before NCDRC. High Court of Bombay while setting aside the ban order issued by the FSSAI specifically held that reports issued by the State Laboratories are invalid as they did not meet the twin test i.e. laboratories where the products are to be tested under the FSS Act are required to be both NABL Accredited as well as FSSAI Notified. Since there is nothing to suggest that International Testing Centre, Panchkula, from where samples drawn from the premises of M/s Nestle India Limited in the State of Himachal Pradesh ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2026 08:02:52 :::CIS 2026:HHC:12475 15 was got tested, is accredited with the NABL and has been notified by FSSAI, report given by it is otherwise not tenable and cannot be looked .
into.
19. Besides above, this Court finds that Food Analyst, International Testing Centre, Panchkula, where sample was analysed, was not competent to analyse Maggi Noodle for the presence of lead, as it of was not accredited to analyse sample. The notification of the said laboratory under Section 43 lapsed on 04.06.2015 on account of expiry rt of its accreditation certificate, thus, on the date of analysis i.e. 13.06.2015, the said laboratory was also not notified and as such, was not competent to conduct any test/analysis. At this juncture, it may be apt to take note of Sections 3(1)(p) and 43 of the Act, which read as under:
"Section 3(1)(p): "food laboratory" means any food laboratory or institute established by the Central or a State Government or any other agency and accredited by National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration Laboratories or an equivalent accreditation agency and recognised by the Food Authority under Section 43;
Section 43: Recognition and accreditation of laboratories, research institutions and referral food laboratory -
(1) The Food Authority may notify food laboratories and research institutions accredited by National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration Laboratories or any other ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2026 08:02:52 :::CIS 2026:HHC:12475 16 accreditation agency for the purposes of carrying out analysis of samples by the Food Analysts under this Act.
.
(2) The Food Authority shall, establish or recognise by notification, one or more referral food laboratory or laboratories to carry out the functions entrusted to the referral food laboratory by this Act or any rules and regulations made thereunder.
(3) The Food Authority may frame regulations specifying-
of
(a) the functions of food laboratory and referral food laboratory and the local area or areas within which such functions may be carried out;
rt
(b) the procedure for submission to the said laboratory of samples of articles of food for analysis or tests, the forms of the laboratory's reports thereon and the fees payable in respect of such reports; and
(c) such other matters as may be necessary or expedient to enable the said laboratory to carry out its functions effectively."
20. Afore provision of law clearly reveals that food laboratory would mean any laboratory or institute established by the Central or a State Government or any other agency and accredited by National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration Laboratories or an equivalent accreditation agency and recognised by the Food Authority under Section 43 of the Act. Section 43 talks about recognition and accreditation of laboratories, research institutions and referral food laboratories. Though there is no material adduced on record by the complainant to prove that International Testing Centre, Panchkula, was ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2026 08:02:52 :::CIS 2026:HHC:12475 17 accredited by the National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration Laboratories, but even otherwise, notification of the said .
laboratory, as issued under Section 43, lapsed on 04.06.2015, meaning thereby that it was otherwise not competent to test the sample, which was admittedly drawn on 13.06.2015.
21. Though for the detailed discussion made hereinabove, this of Court is of the definite view that proceedings sought to be quashed are ex facie unsustainable, being vitiated by legal and procedural defects, rt but otherwise also, prosecution of the petitioner in the case at hand is not sustainable for the reason that in both the complaints manufacturing company, i.e. M/s Nestle India Limited, has not been made accused, which is otherwise very much necessary. Reliance in this regard is placed upon judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case titled as Aneeta Hada Vs. Godfather Travels and Tours Private Limited, (2012) 5 SCC 661, wherein it came to be clarified that company is a juristic person and can be fastened with criminal liability.
Relevant Paras of afore judgment read as under:
"58. Applying the doctrine of strict construction, we are of the considered opinion that commission of offence by the company is an express condition precedent to attract the vicarious liability of others. Thus, the words "as well as the company" appearing in the section make it absolutely unmistakably clear that when the company can be prosecuted, then only the persons mentioned in ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2026 08:02:52 :::CIS 2026:HHC:12475 18 the other categories could be vicariously liable for the offence subject to the averments in the petition and proof thereof. One .
cannot be oblivious of the fact that the company is a juristic person and it has its own respectability. If a finding is recorded against it, it would create a concavity in its reputation. There can be situations when the corporate reputation is affected when a Director is indicted.
59. In view of our aforesaid analysis, we arrive at the irresistible of conclusion that for maintaining the prosecution under Section 141 of the Act, arraigning of a company as an accused is imperative. The other categories of offenders can only be brought in the drag-
rt net on the touchstone of vicarious liability as the same has been stipulated in the provision itself. We say so on the basis of the ratio laid down in C.V. Parekh [(1970) 3 SCC 491 : 1971 SCC (Cri) 97] which is a three-Judge Bench decision. Thus, the view expressed in Sheoratan Agarwal [(1984) 4 SCC 352 : 1984 SCC (Cri) 620] does not correctly lay down the law and, accordingly, is hereby overruled. The decision in Anil Hada [(2000) 1 SCC 1 :
2001 SCC (Cri) 174] is overruled with the qualifier as stated in para 51. The decision in Modi Distillery [(1987) 3 SCC 684 : 1987 SCC (Cri) 632] has to be treated to be restricted to its own facts as has been explained by us hereinabove."
22. Reliance is also placed upon judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Hindustan Unilever Limited Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2020) 10 SCC 751. In afore case, Hon'ble Apex Court held that there is no material distinction between Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and Section 17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, which makes company as well as nominated person guilty of offences ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2026 08:02:52 :::CIS 2026:HHC:12475 19 and/or liable to be proceeded and punished accordingly. In afore case, Hon'ble Apex Court held that in the absence of company, nominated .
person cannot be convicted or vice versa. Relevant Paras of afore judgment read as under:
"22. Section 17 of the 1954 Act reads as under:
"17. Offences by companies.--(1) Where an offence under this Act of has been committed by a company--
(a)(i) the person, if any, who has been nominated under sub-
section (2) to be in charge of, and responsible to, the company for rt the conduct of the business of the company (hereinafter in this section referred to as the person responsible), or
(ii) where no person has been so nominated, every person who at the time the offence was committed was in charge of, and was responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business of the company; and
(b) the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly:
Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any such person liable to any punishment provided in this Act if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge and that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence."
(emphasis supplied)
23. Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the Act makes the person nominated to be in charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of business and the company shall be guilty of the offences under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2026 08:02:52 :::CIS 2026:HHC:12475 20 17 of the Act. Therefore, there is no material distinction between Section 141 of the NI Act and Section 17 of the Act which makes .
the company as well as the nominated person to be held guilty of the offences and/or liable to be proceeded and punished accordingly. Clauses (a) and (b) are not in the alternative but conjoint. Therefore, in the absence of the company, the nominated person cannot be convicted or vice versa. Since the Company was not convicted by the trial court, we find that the finding of the of High Court to revisit the judgment will be unfair to the appellant- nominated person who has been facing trial for more than last 30 years. Therefore, the order of remand to the trial court to fill up rt the lacuna is not a fair option exercised by the High Court as the failure of the trial court to convict the Company renders the entire conviction of the nominated person as unsustainable."
23. Reliance is also placed upon the judgment passed by the High Court of Karnataka in Rohit Jawa Vs. State of Karnataka, 2025 SCC OnLine Kar 10091, wherein it has been held as under:
"8. In the above decisions, the prosecution against the accused came to be quashed on the ground that company is not made a party.
"9. At this stage it is relevant to refer to Section 66 of the Food, Safety and Standards Act, 2006 which deals with offences by companies. It reads as follows:
"66. Offences by companies (1) Where an offence under this Act which has been committed by a company, every person who at the time the offence was committed was in-charge of, and was responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2026 08:02:52 :::CIS 2026:HHC:12475 21 offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly:
.
PROVIDED that where a company has different establishments or branches or different units in any establishment or branch, the concerned Head or the person in-charge of such establishment, branch, unit nominated by the company as responsible for food safety shall be liable for contravention in respect of such establishment, branch or unit:
of PROVIDED FURTHER that nothing contained in this sub- Section shall render any such person liable to any punishment provided in this Act, if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he exercised all due rt diligence to prevent the commission of such offence.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1), where an offence under this Act has been committed by a company and it is proved that the offence has been committed with the consent or connivance of or is attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company, such director, manager, secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly."
10. This provision is similar to Section 141 of Negotiable Instruments Act which also deals with dishonour of cheques issued for and on behalf of the company and when the drawer of the cheque, Managing Director, Joint Managing Director, other Directors and officials who are incharge and responsible for the conduct of the business are prosecuted on the ground that they are vicariously liable for the offence committed by the company, it is mandatory also to arraign the company as accused and in its absence, they are not liable.
11. In the Food, Safety and Standards Act also, when every person who at the time the offence was committed was incharge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of business of the ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2026 08:02:52 :::CIS 2026:HHC:12475 22 company, then the company as well as such person shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished.
.
12. Therefore, the presence of the company is necessary in order to hold such person liable. Admittedly, in the present case, the company is not arraigned as an accused and therefore, the petitioner who is sole accused cannot be proceeded against. For this reason, the criminal proceedings against the accused are liable to be quashed. However, the complainant is at liberty to file fresh complaint by implicating the company also and thereafter of proceed further and accordingly, the following:"
24. There is another aspect of the matter that the process issued rt against the petitioner/accused is barred by limitation. Learned trial Court while taking cognizance vide order dated 17.03.2017 failed to take note of Section 77 of the FSS Act, which reads as under:
"77. Time limit for prosecutions.-
Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, no court shall take cognizance of an offence under this Act after the expiry of the period of one year from the date of commission of an offence:Provided that the Commissioner of Food Safety may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, approve prosecution within an extended period of up to three years."
25. It is apparent from the aforesaid provision of law that the time limit for taking cognizance under the FSS Act is only one year from the date of commission of the alleged offence. In the instant case, sample was taken by the respondent/FSO on 04.06.2015 and thereafter on the basis of the report by the Food Analyst dated 13.06.2015, the FSO filed the complaints on 16.03.2016 before the learned trial Court, whereupon ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2026 08:02:52 :::CIS 2026:HHC:12475 23 the learned trial Court vide order dated 17.03.2017/23.04.2016 took cognizance and issued process against the petitioner/accused after the .
period of limitation, as prescribed under the FSS Act. Section 77 of the Act states that the cognizance can be taken within 'one year from the commission of any offence' i.e. one year from the date, offence is alleged to have been committed i.e. the date of analysis of food product. There is of nothing on the record suggestive of the fact that Commissioner of Food Safety, while recording reasons in writing extended time, whereafter rt proceeding could be initiated after expiry of one year. Reliance in this regard is placed upon judgment passed by the High Court of Telangana in Criminal Petition No.3437 of 2022, titled as M/s. PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. State of Telangana and Another, which reads as under:
"08. Section 77 of the Act, which stipulates that the prosecutions must be launched within a period of one year, has significance. It entails the Food Inspectors to act swiftly and without delay. It is also a measure of fair and reasonable procedure prescribed under law before depriving the liberty of an individual. When the statute prescribes a period of limitation and carves out an exception from the main provision, the conditions required to fall within the exception must be strictly adhered to. The principle that penal statutes are to be interpreted strictly also has to be followed. Therefore, as a measure of depriving the liberty of an individual when the statute provides certain conditions to be satisfied, there cannot be any scope for a liberal interpretation. The requirement for giving reasons in writing enables the court to review whether the stated reasons for extending the time for prosecution are legally and factually justifiable or not."::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2026 08:02:52 :::CIS
2026:HHC:12475 24
26. Besides above, there is another ground which makes prosecution of the petitioner wholly untenable that sanction for .
prosecution of the petitioner in the case at hand was given by Chief Medical Officer, Una, which is bad in law. Section 42 of the FSS Act clearly mandates that sanction to prosecute has to be obtained from Commissioner of Food Safety. In the present case there is no consent to of prosecute by Commissioner of Food Safety, rather Chief Medical Officer who has accorded sanction, was not authorised to do so, as a result rt thereof, complaint having been filed without mandatory sanction is otherwise liable to be quashed. Reliance in this regard is placed upon judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in A.K. Roy and Another Vs. State of Punjab and Others, (1986) 4 SCC 326, wherein Hon'ble Apex Court held that Food (Health) Authority is not competent to sub-
delegate that power to Food Inspector. Relevant Paras of afore judgment read as under:
"10. A careful analysis of the language of Section 20(1) of the Act clearly shows that it inhibits institution of prosecutions for an offence under the Act except on fulfilment of one or the other of the two conditions. Either the prosecutions must be instituted by the Central Government or the State Government or a person authorised in that behalf by the Central Government or the State Government, or the prosecutions should be instituted with the written consent of any of the four specified categories of authorities or persons. If either of these two conditions is ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2026 08:02:52 :::CIS 2026:HHC:12475 25 satisfied, there would be sufficient authority for the institution of such a prosecution for an offence under the Act. The provision .
contained in Section 20(1) of the Act does not contemplate the institution of a prosecution by any person other than those designated. The terms of Section 20(1) do not envisage further delegation of powers by the person authorised, except that such prosecution may be instituted with the written consent of the Central Government or the State Government or the person of authorised. The use of the negative words in Section 20(1) "No prosecution for an offence under this Act ... shall be instituted except by or with the written consent of" plainly make the rt requirements of the section imperative. That conclusion of ours must necessarily follow from the well-known rule of construction of inference to be drawn from the negative language used in a statute stated by Craies on Statute Law, 6th Edn., p. 263 in his own terse language:
"If the requirements of a statute which prescribes the manner in which something is to be done are expressed in negative language, that is to say, if the statute enacts that it shall be done in such a manner and in no other manner, it has been laid down that those requirements are in all cases absolute, and that neglect to attend to them will invalidate the whole proceeding."
(emphasis supplied) Where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all. Other modes of performance are necessarily forbidden. The intention of the legislature in enacting Section 20(1) was to confer a power on the authorities specified therein which power had to be exercised in the manner provided and not otherwise.
::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2026 08:02:52 :::CIS2026:HHC:12475 26
11. The first part of Section 20(1) of the Act lays down the manner of launching prosecutions for an offence under the Act, .
not being an offence under Section 14 or Section 14-A. The second part provides for delegation of powers by the Central Government or the State Government. It enables that prosecutions for an offence under the Act can also be instituted with the written consent of the Central Government or the State Government or by a person authorised in that behalf, by a general of or special order issued by the Central Government or the State Government. The use of the words "in this behalf" in Section 20(1) of the Act shows that the delegation of such power by the Central rt Government or the State Government by general or special order must be for a specific purpose, to authorise a designated person to institute such prosecutions on their behalf. The terms of Section 20(1) of the Act do not postulate further delegation by the person so authorised; he can only give his consent in writing when he is satisfied that a prima facie case exists in the facts of a particular case and records his reasons for the launching of such prosecution in the public interest."
27. Since Commissioner of Food Safety is the competent authority to sanction prosecution, which in the cases at hand has not been given by afore authority, prosecution of the petitioner pursuant to sanction given by the Chief Medical Officer, being in total violation of provisions contained in Section 42 of the FSS Act, is wholly untenable. If it is so, complaint lodged pursuant to aforesaid sanction otherwise deserves outright dismissal.
::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2026 08:02:52 :::CIS2026:HHC:12475 27
28. Though no specific objection has been raised at the behest of respondent with regard to maintainability of the present petition under .
Section 482 Cr.P.C., but otherwise also, by now it is well-settled that where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite of him/her due to private and personal grudge, High Court while exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 of BNSS) can proceed rt to quash the proceedings.
29. Reliance in this regard is placed upon judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Prashant Bharti Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2013) 9 SCC 293, Rajiv Thapar and Others Vs. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330, Anand Kumar Mohatta and Anr. v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) Department of Home and Anr, AIR 2019 SC 210 and Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. The State of Maharashtra and Anr, (2019) 9 SCC 608.
30. Since for the reasons detailed herein above, case of prosecution is bound to fail against the petitioner in all probabilities, in case prayer made on behalf of the petitioner is not accepted, he would be subjected to unnecessary ordeal of facing protracted trial, which otherwise is bound to fail.
::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2026 08:02:52 :::CIS2026:HHC:12475 28
31. Consequently in view of detailed discussions made hereinabove as well as law taken into consideration, this Court find .
merit in the present petitions and accordingly the same are allowed.
Complaint cases bearing No.03/2016 & 02/2016 dated 16.03.2016, impugned orders dated 17.03.2017 & 23.04.2016 taking cognizance and 03.01.2018 & 06.04.2018 framing notice of accusation and consequent of proceedings in cases titled as Sate of H.P. Vs. Raghu Vakkiyal, registered under Section 59(1) of the FSS Act are quashed and set aside. The rt petitioner is discharged henceforth in both the cases.
All pending applications, stand disposed of.
April 18, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma),
Rajeev Raturi Judge
::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2026 08:02:52 :::CIS