Delhi District Court
Food Safety Officer vs Pravin Kumar on 8 September, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. PRANAV JOSHI, ADDITIONAL
CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, NEW DELHI, PATIALA
HOUSE COURTS, DELHI
Cr. Cases No. 3373/2020
CNR No. DLND020080952020
FSO Vs. PRAVIN KUMAR & ORS.
U/S 26/59 FSS ACT, 2006
1) The date of commission : 13.06.2019
of offence
2) The name of the complainant : FSO Renu Sejwal
3) The name & parentage of accused : 1. Sh. Pravin
Kumar,
C/o Pind Balluchi,
Unit of Akshara
Hospitality LLP,
1-7, Kailash Park,
Delhi.
R/o H. No. 2663,
Shadipur Main
Bazar,
Delhi.
2. Sh. Rajeev Kumar
C/o Pind Balluchi,
Unit of Akshara
Hospitality LLP,
1-7, Kailash Park,
Delhi.
Cr. Case No. 3373/2020 FSO Vs. PRAVIN KUMAR & ORS. Page No. 1/19
R/o H. No. 146/147,
Harphool Vihar,
Near Shanti Public
School,
Delhi.
3. M/s Pind Balluchi,
A Unit of M/s
Akshara Hospitality,
1-7, Kailash Park,
Delhi.
4) Offence complained of : U/s. 26/59 of
FSS Act, 2006
5) The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
6) Final order : Acquitted
7) The date of such order : 08.09.2025
Date of Institution : 17.08.2020
Reserved for Judgment : 01.04.2025
Date of Decision : 08.09.2025
JUDGMENT
1. This is a complaint instituted under Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as 'FSS Act') for violation of section 26 punishable under section 59 of FSS Act.
2. Brief facts leading to filing of the present complaint are that on 13.06.2019 Food Safety Officer Ms. Renu Sejwal (hereinafter referred to as 'FSO') along with Sh. Naresh Kumar Sharma FSO, and Sh. Kuldeep Singh Suman (FSO) as per the order of Designated Officer, West District Sh. A K Singh, had Cr. Case No. 3373/2020 FSO Vs. PRAVIN KUMAR & ORS. Page No. 2/19 taken a sample of 'Soya Chaap Tikka' an article of Food for analysis from Sh. Pravin Kumar, Food Business Operator-cum- Manager (hereinafter referred to as 'FBO') at M/s Pind Balluchi, A uni Hospitality LLP, 17 Kalinsh Park. New Delhi. That Sh. Pravin Kumar was found conducting the business of the said premises and various food articles were stored for sale for human consumption. That the FSO has disclosed her identity to the FBO and after inspection of the food article, showed her intention of taking a sample of 'Soya Chaap Tikka' for analysis to which the he agreed. That the FSO tried to associate some public witnesses by requesting few customers and neighbors but when none came forward, then FSO requested Sh. Naresh Kumar Sharma FSO to join as witness in sample proceedings to which he agreed. That at about 04:15 pm, the FSO purchased a sample of 'Soya Chaap Tikka' for analysis from FBO.
3. It is further averred that the sample consisted of approx. 02 Kg of 'Soya Chaap Tikka', ready for use for analysis. That the sample was taken after breaking it into smallest possible pieces with the help of a clean and dry spoon in the same container and mixed properly with the help of the same spoon, in the same container by rotating it in all possible directions several times. That the FSO divided the sample of food article into four equal parts then and there by putting into four clean and dry glass bottles and 40 drops of formalin were added in each counterpart of the sample bottle with the help of clean and dry dropper. That each packet as a counterpart, was separately marked, packed, fastened and sealed according to the provision of Food Safety and standard Act, 2006 and Rules/Regulations made there under. That the FBO's signatures were obtained on the Designated Cr. Case No. 3373/2020 FSO Vs. PRAVIN KUMAR & ORS. Page No. 3/19 Officer slip bearing signature of the Designated Officer Sh. AK Singh and wrapper of the bottle containing the sample in such a manner as to partly appear on the Designated Officer slip and partly on the wrapper of the sample bottle. That signatures of the FBO were also obtained on the labels of all counter parts of the sample. That notice in Form VA was prepared at the spot and copy of the same was given to the FBO. That Panchnama was also prepared at the spot and Rs. 500/- was paid to FBO in cash via FBO Receipt dated 13.06.2019 for the sample purchased.. That all the sampled documents prepared by the FSO were read over and explained to the FBO in Hindi who signed the same after understanding the contents thereof. That these documents were also signed by the FBO as well as by the witness Sh. Naresh Kumar Sharma FSO.
4. It is further averred that on 14.06.2019, one part of the aforesaid sample of 'Soya Chaap Tikka' bearing DO Code No. 07/DO-22/14068 and sample N. 746/1057/44/2019 in intact condition along with copy of memo in Form-VI in a sealed packet along and another copy of memo in Form VI under sealed cover were sent separately to the Food Analyst, Delhi. That the other two counterparts of the sample along with two copies of memos in Form VI were deposited with the then Designated Officer Sh. A K Singh on 14.06.2019 in intact condition in a sealed packet under intimation that one counterpart of the sample has already been sent to the Food Analyst for analysis. That as the FBO did not request to send the fourth counterpart of the sample for analysis by NABL Accredited Laboratory under Rule 2.4.5 of Food Safety and Standards Rules, 2011 as such the fourth counterpart along with copy of memo in Form- VI was Cr. Case No. 3373/2020 FSO Vs. PRAVIN KUMAR & ORS. Page No. 4/19 also deposited with the then Designated Officer Sh. A K Singh in intact condition in a sealed packet 14.06.2019. That all copies of Memo in Form-VI bore the same seal impression with which sample parts were sealed.
5. It is further averred that the Food Analyst analysed the sample and opined vide his report No FSS/856/2019 dated 24.06.19 that 'The sample is unsafe because it is coloured with synthetic colouring matter viz Sunset yellow fcf in contravention of Section 3(1) zz (v), (vii) & (viii) of the Food Safety & Standards Act, 2006'. That the Food Analyst also reported on label-without any label declaration. That the then Designated Officer of District West, Sh. A K Singh, on 27.06.2019, sent a letter along with a copy of the Food Analyst report to the FBO on the business premises as well as on his residential address for giving him an opportunity to file an appeal against the report of the Food Analyst under section 46(4) for sending one part of the sample to the referral food Laboratory, if so desired by the FBO. That on 23.07.2019, FBO after receiving the intimation letter along with the Food Analyst Report, preferred an appeal against the report of Food Analyst under rule 2.4.6 (1) of The Food Safety and Standards Rules, 2011 before the then Designated Officer concerned Sh. A K Singh and accordingly one counterpart of sample was sent to Referral Food Laboratory, Ghaziabad.
6. It is further averred that the Director, Referral Food Laboratory, Ghaziabad vide certificate No. 362/Aug/19-ND dated 28.08.2019 has opined that 'The sample of Soya Chaap Tikka contravenes to the requirements laid down under Regulation No. 2.12 of Fond Safety and Standards (Food Products Standards and Cr. Case No. 3373/2020 FSO Vs. PRAVIN KUMAR & ORS. Page No. 5/19 Food Additive) Regulations, 2011 as the sample shows the presence of water soluble synthetic colour and oil soluble synthetic colour. The sample is thus unsafe under section 3(1) zz.
(vii) & (viii) of the Food Safety & Standards Act, 2006'. That after investigation it was revealed that Sh. Pravin Kumar was the manager of the premises M/s Pind Balluchi and looks after the day to day business of the said company and as such is in charge of the conduct of the business and to be proceeded against. That M/s Pind Balluchi is a Partnership firm with three partners: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sh. Praful Arora and Sh. Rajan Duggal and M/s Pind Balluchi had appointed a nominee Sh. Rajeev Kumar as per the nomination form IX under Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, who looks after the day to day business of the said company and as such is in charge of the conduct of the business and is liable to the offence. That M/s Pind Balluchi is also liable for the offence and hence, to be proceeded against. That the above said accused have violated the provisions of Section 26(1), 26(2)(i), 26(2)(ii) read with Section 3(1) zz (v), (vii) & (viii) of the Food Safety & Standards Act, 2006, which is punishable under Section 59 (i) of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.
7. It is further averred that the file was forwarded to Designated Officer West, Department of Food Safety, by FSO for extension of time to launch the prosecution after completion of investigation. That due to Covid -19 pandemic, Court proceedings were suspended, time to launch prosecution was extended by the Commissioner, Food Safety for the period of three months beyond the prescribed time limit of one year as per power conferred upon Commissioner, Food Safety under section 77 of FSS Act, 2006. That after conclusion of the investigation, Cr. Case No. 3373/2020 FSO Vs. PRAVIN KUMAR & ORS. Page No. 6/19 this instant, case file including the statutory documents and Food Analyst's report sent by the Designated Officer South to Commissioner (Food Safety), Department of Food Safety, Govt. of NCT of Delhi who accorded consent under section 42(4) of FSS Act, 2006 for the prosecution of accused in exercise of the power vested in him under section 30(2)(e) of the Food Safety and Standards, Act, 2006.
8. Upon filing of the present complaint, cognizance was taken vide order dated 17.12.2020. Upon service of summons, accused appeared. After complying with the provision under section 207 Cr.P.C, vide order dated 21.03.2022, notice for the offences under section 3/26/59 of FSS Act was served upon the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, the case was fixed for prosecution evidence.
9. The complainant/department examined Sh. S.M. Bhardwaj, Food Analyst as PW1 who deposed that on 14.06.2019, he was posted as Food Analyst in Department of Food Safety. That on that day, one sample of 'Soya Chap' bearing code number and serial No. 746/1057/44/2019 of Designated Officer of 07/DO-22/14068 was received in sealed condition for analysis in the office. That the seal was intact and not tampered. That he conducted the analysis of the said food sample from 14.06.2019 to 24.06.2019 and prepared detailed report Ex. PW 1/A. That As per his report, the sample was unsafe because it is coloured with synthetic colouring matter viz sunset yellow in contravention of Section 3(1)(zz) (v).(vii) and (viii) of the FSS Act, 2006. That thereafter, he forwarded the report to the concerned Designated officer. The witness was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused.
Cr. Case No. 3373/2020 FSO Vs. PRAVIN KUMAR & ORS. Page No. 7/1910. The complainant/department examined FSO Ms. Renu Sejwal Singh as PW2. She deposed on the lines of the complaint and relied upon the following documents:
(a) FBO receipt Ex. PW2/A,
(b) Form VA Ex. PW2/B,
(c) Panchnama Ex. PW2/C,
(d) Raid Report Ex. PW2/D,
(e) Receipt of deposit with Food Analyst Ex. PW2/E
(f) Receipt of sample to DO Ex. PW2/F,
(g) Report of Food Analyst Ex. PW1/A,
(h) Letter to Referral Food Laboratory Ex. PW2/G,
(i) Letter to VAT officer Ex. PW2/H and its reply Ex.
PW2/H-1,
(j) Second letter to VAT officer Ex. PW2/I.
(k) Letters to FBO Ex. PW2/J and Ex. PW2/J-1 and their reply Ex. PW2/K
(l) Letter to system analyst Ex. PW2/L and response of system analyst Mark P-1 (colly.),
(m) Sanction of Commissioner Food Safety Ex. PW2/M, The witness was duly cross examined by Ld. Counse for the accused.
11. The complainant/department examined Sh. Naresh Kumar Sharma, FSO as PW3 who deposed similarly to PW1. The said witness was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused.
12. The prosecution examined Sh. A.K Singh, DO as Cr. Case No. 3373/2020 FSO Vs. PRAVIN KUMAR & ORS. Page No. 8/19 PW4 who deposed that on 13.06.2019, he was posted as Designated Officer, West District in Food Safety Department, Government of NCT of Delhi. That on that day, he directed FSO Ms. Renu Sejwal, FSO Naresh Sharma and FSO Kuldeep Singh to conduct general raid in West District area, Delhi. That after taking the sample of 'Soya Chap Takka' as told to him, FSO deposited two counterparts alongwith two copies of Form VI in intact condition in a sealed packet with him and another copy of Memo in Form VI in a separate sealed cover with Food Analyst on 14.06.2019. That as the FBO did not request to send the fourth counterpart of the sample for analysis from NABL Accredited Laboratory under Rule 2.4.5 of Food Safety and Standard Rule 2011, as such the fourth counterpart alongwith the copy of memo in form VI was also deposited with him in intact condition. That he signed the Raid Report Ex. PW-2/D on 14.06.2019. That he received Food Analyst report Ex. PW-1/A. That thereafter, on 27.06.2019, he sent intimation letter along-with the copy of Food Analyst report to FBO Parvin Kumar for giving them an opportunity to file an appeal against the report of Food Analyst under Section 46 (4) and for sending one part of sample to the Referral Laboratory if the accused desired. That thereafter, he was transferred to other district and he handed over the case file to Designated Officer Sh. B.P. Saroha on 05.07.2019.
13. The complainant/department examined Sh. R. K. Bhaskar as PW5 who deposed that on 05.06.2020, he was posted as DO, West District and the present case was presented to him by the FSO Ms. Renu Sejwal for three month extension. That he forwarded the same to the then Commissioner Food Safety Sh. D.N. Singh and obtained three months extension. That thereafter, Cr. Case No. 3373/2020 FSO Vs. PRAVIN KUMAR & ORS. Page No. 9/19 on 28.07.2020, sanction for prosecution Ex.PW2/M was granted by the Worthy Commissioner. That he was acquainted with his handwriting and signatures in official capacity. The witness identified the signatures Commissioner of Food Safety. That he instructed FSO to file the complaint in the present case. The witness was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused.
14. Upon completion of prosecution evidence, the case was fixed for recording of statements of the accused persons under section 313 Cr.P.C. The statements of the accused persons were recorded on 15.01.2024. The accused Pravin stated that the sample was not mixed properly and copy of notice as per Form VA was not read over and explained to him. The accused Pravin pleaded innocence and opted to lead defence evidence. The accused Rajeev Kumar stated that he was not present at the spot when sample was taken. He also opted to lead defence evidence.
15. Thereafter, the case was fixed for recording of defence evidence. The accused persons examined Dr. G.P Shamra, Director RFL in their defence. On the question that he has mentioned the name of the method used by him for testing, he deposed that the method of testing was as per FSSAI Manual Method which is already available on the portal of the FSSAI to the public and the method of testing of colors in food products are well mentioned. On the question various different types of chromatography methods for testing of food articles for color such as paper chromatograph, thin layer chromatography, column chromatography, high performance liquid chromatograph (HPLC) prescribed in the FSSAI Lab Manual for the food additives 2016 which includes qualitative identification and quantification of water soluble synthetic colors, oil soluble Cr. Case No. 3373/2020 FSO Vs. PRAVIN KUMAR & ORS. Page No. 10/19 natural and synthetic colors in food items, he deposed that all the clarification of method sought above are available in the record of the test certificate which can be called from the RFL Ghaziabad. On the question oil soluble natural color such as Capsanchin is inherently present in the ingredient Degi Mirch which was used in the preparation of the sampled food article and such oil soluble natural color also get extracted alongwith oil soluble synthetic colors, if any present in the food article, he deposed that in the qualitative and quantitative determination of the all food colors extracted from the said food item was done by the standard testing method prescribed by FSSAI, in which all the aspect/concern reached about are well taken care of. On the question various different methods/have been prescribed in the FSSAI Manual for Food Additives 2016 for extraction of water soluble color and oil soluble natural and synthetic color and method for testing are also different for identification and quantification of such different types of oil soluble and water soluble colors, he deposed that it was correct and appropriate method for testing has been followed as prescribed in the FSSAI Manual. On the question all synthetic color including para red color which has Azo Chemical Class which can be determined by chemical examination but RFL report reveals that no such test was conducted to confirm the color as synthetic color, he deposed that it was not correct to say that test was not conducted to confirm the color as synthetic or natural and that it was done as per the standard procedure mentioned in the manual. On the question which test methods were adopted as per analysis record, he deposed that Thin Layer Chromatographic test for Parared colour synthetic colour was conducted. He further deposed that Cr. Case No. 3373/2020 FSO Vs. PRAVIN KUMAR & ORS. Page No. 11/19 as per record, Paper Chromatographic for water soluble synthetic colour for qualitative i.e. sunset yellow, and for quantification, Spectrophotometric method for sunset yellow was conducted. He further deposed that the test for all natural colours including colour capsanthin were tested. That the procedures were followed to test with paper chormatography and thin layer chromatography but natural colours were found absent but non-permitted para-red and sunset yellow were found present at paper chromatography and thin layer chromatography. On the question natural colour capsanthin was absent by method adopted and whether he noted down in the record of analysis that the same was found absent, he deposed that as per the testing protocol, they specifically test for synthetic non-permitted colour which were found present in the sample then they do not focus on the presence of natural colour because if the sample contains non-permitted synthetic colour then sample is unsafe for the human consumption irrespective of the fact whether the nature colour is present in the sample or not. On the question testing of para-red colour in the food sample under FSSAI Food Additive Manual HPLC method has been specifically prescribed which was conducted and therefore the TLC method (thin layer chromatography) adopted was neither the confirmative methor nor was prescribed under the FSSAI Manual, he deposed that it was incorrect to suggest that TLC method is not confirmative test. He deposed that TLC test was most reliable test for qualitative observation and HPLC was done for quantification only. On the question which test was adopted for confirmation of natural colour and the name of the said method, he deposed that the sample was qualitatively tested by TLC and for quantification HPLC was not conducted because Cr. Case No. 3373/2020 FSO Vs. PRAVIN KUMAR & ORS. Page No. 12/19 even the presence of para-red colour in the food was prohibited. On the question that oil soluble para-red colour was not present in the sample and during extration of colour from the sampled food only oil soluble capasantin colour which is inherently present in Degi Mirch was extracted from the sample commodity and that he wrongly concluded the natural colour as para-red on the basis of visual examination and without ascertaining its chemical class which was requisite to conclude whether the colour found was natural or synthetic, he deposed that it was incorrect to suggest that he wrongly ascertained synthetic para- red as natural capsanthin because while confirming the para-red colour in TLC (thin layer chromatography test), they put the certified reference standard of para-red colour parallel to the sample and both are compared with each other and hence, chemical class of the colour was not required to be reported. On the question whether the compared the colour form in the sample with the reference standard with para-red was compared visually, he admitted it to be correct and deposed that it was visually examined but comparing with certified reference standard of para-red colour. On the question that he did not adopt internationally recognized method namely GC-MS (Gas Chromatography and Mas Spectrometry) for confirmation of oil soluble synthetic para-red by ascertaining its chemical class molecular weight and structure to ascertain the presence of para- red colour as per prescribed lab manuals as per Rule No. 2-4- 2427 of the FSS Rules, he deposed that it was incorrect to suggest that GC-MS (Gas Chromatography and Mas Spectrometry) shall be conducted under Rule 2.4.2427 of the FSS for presence of para-red colour. He deposed that TLC is also Cr. Case No. 3373/2020 FSO Vs. PRAVIN KUMAR & ORS. Page No. 13/19 internationally accepted method for testing of para-red colour. On the question that 'Soya Chap Tikka' was prepared food and the presence of sunset yellow in the sample can be accounted for by carry over principle from one of the ingredients namely Ginger Garlic paste which is botanically a vegetable paste and belongs to food category 4.2.2.6 of the FSSAI, in which sunset yellow colour was allowed upto 50 ppm, he deposed that while testing the food samples, they only test for the synthetic non-permitted colour without taking into consideration of carry over principle. On the suggestion that he has not analysis the samples himself and prepared the final report on the basis of incomplete and wrong testing and incomplete data and his opinion about para-red colour without futher verification and confirmation at his end therefore, no reliance can be placed on his report, he deposed that being Director, he has to cause the sample analysed from the analyst of the lab and not to personally himself test the sample. He deposed that he, however, supervised constantly the analysis of sample by checking the test result of analyst in between. He denied the suggestion that the report was prepared on the basis of incomplete and wrong testing and incomplete data and that he has given his opinion about para-red colour without further verification and confirmation.
16. After conclusion of the defence evidence, the case was fixed for final arguments.
17. I heard the submissions of both the sides and perused the record.
18. It is the contention of Ld. Counsel for the accused that the methods of testing were not mentioned in the report by Cr. Case No. 3373/2020 FSO Vs. PRAVIN KUMAR & ORS. Page No. 14/19 Director, RFL in violation of Section 42(2) of FSS Act and Rules 2.4.2(5) of FSS Rules, 2011. Ld. Counsel for the accused has relied upon the judgment of Harshadkumar Somabhai Modi Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors., 2016 1 FAC 91. It is not disputed that the report of Director, RFL Ex.A-1 does not mention the methods of testing. It is pertinent to mention that Director, RFL who appeared as DW1, upon questioning as to why the methods of testing were not mentioned, deposed that the tests were conducted as per FSSAI Manual and that the same are available on the portal of FSSAI. It is pertinent to mention that as per Section 42(2) of FSS Act, the methods of sampling and analysis are required to be mentioned on the report. The same is the requirement of Rule 2.4.2(5) of FSS Rules, 2011. Therefore, the method used for analysis was required to be mentioned on the report of RFL. The explanation given by Director, RFL that the methods of testing are available on the website, is not acceptable, especially, when the law requires that methods of testing should be mentioned on the report of the expert. It was held in Harshadkumar (supra) that if the methodology adopted while analyzing the sample are not placed before the court, the report cannot be accepted. Similar view was taken by Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in Prahladdas Vs. State of M.P., 2019 1 FAC 80 wherein it was held that non mentioning of the methodology of analysis which is prescribed in Form III of FSS Rules goes to the root of the matter and accused cannot be convicted on the basis of such report.
19. As per the report of Director, RFL, Para Red synthetic colour was present in the sample. It is the contention of Ld. Counsel for the accused that the analysis of RFL in opining Cr. Case No. 3373/2020 FSO Vs. PRAVIN KUMAR & ORS. Page No. 15/19 the presence of Para Red Synthetic colour cannot be relied upon. It is submitted that Para Red Synthetic colour is oil soluble synthetic colour and similar to Para Red Synthetic colour, Capsanthin Natural colour which is also oil soluble, is present in Degi Mirch which is used in the preparation of Soya Chap Tikka and thus, it was required to be identified whether the colour found was natural Capsanthin or Synthetic Para Red. There is some substance in the contention raised by the Ld. Counsel for the accused. The expert has not determined the chemical class and simply on the basis of TLC method, concluded that there was oil soluble Para Red colour present in the sample. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Crl. P. No. 244/2009 dated 06.09.2010, upheld the acquittal on the finding of the expert that Pink Shed Oil Soluble colour found in the sample using TLC method, without determining the chemical class, ignoring the oil soluble natural colour in Rai. In the present case, the prosecution has not disputed the use of Degi Mirch (Red Chili Powder) in the preparation of the food article in question nor the prosecution is disputing that Capsanthin, naturally occurring pigment, is found in Degi Mirch (Red Chili Powder). As per the website of ScienceDirect, Capsanthin defined as a red carotenoid predominantly present in red peppers and the same is oil soluble1. Hence, when two types of oil soluble red colour are present in a sample, it is necessary for the expert to ascertain the chemical class of the colour so that it could be determined without any doubt that the sample contains non permitted oil soluble colour. In the present case, the expert's report Ex.A-1 states that the sample contained Para Red Synthetic Colour but the expert 1 https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/capsanthin Cr. Case No. 3373/2020 FSO Vs. PRAVIN KUMAR & ORS. Page No. 16/19 ignored the naturally occurring pigment i.e. Capsanthin which is present in Red Chilli and there is nothing in the report which segregates the two. Simply testing for oil soluble colour would not mean that the sample contained synthetic oil soluble colour only. The presence of natural pigment such as capsanthin was ignored by the expert. Without segregation of the natural colour with the synthetic colour, the report of the expert opining the presence of oil soluble synthetic colour is not acceptable.
20. The report of Director, RFL also states that sunset yellow synthetic colour was also present in the sample. It is the contention of Ld. Counsel for the accused that Soya Chap Tikka contains ginger garlic paste is essentially a vegetable paste and use of sunset yellow colour is permitted up to 50 ppm. As per Regulation 4.2.2.6 of FSS (Food Products Standards & Food Additives) Regulation, 2011, vegetable paste falls under food category prescribed for which sunset yellow colour up to 50 ppm is permitted. There is no finding of the expert as to how much sunset yellow colour was present in the sample. The expert has also not able to specify whether the sunset yellow colour was present in the sample due to the carry over from the ingredients used in the preparation in which the sunset yellow colour is present or it was due to synthetic colour which was directly added. Simply finding sunset yellow oil soluble colour was not sufficient. As per Regulation 3.1.1(10) of FSS (Food Products Standards & Food Additives) Regulation, 2011, carry over principle in food additives is recognized and it is recognized that when an additive which is permissible for use in raw materials or other ingredients not exceeding the prescribed limits, it may be present in the food articles as a result of carry over from a raw Cr. Case No. 3373/2020 FSO Vs. PRAVIN KUMAR & ORS. Page No. 17/19 material or ingredients used to produce the food.
21. It is the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the accused that the designated officer violated the provision of Section 42(3) of FSS Act and did not send the report of the RFL to the Commissioner, Food Safety within 14 days. It is not in dispute that the designated officer received the report of RFL on 06.09.2019 but the file was sent to Commissioner, Food Safety for seeking sanction only on 05.06.2020. As per Section 42(3) of FSS Act, the designated officer has to send the report of the public analyst to Commissioner, Food Safety for obtaining sanction within a period of 14 days. In the present case, there is clear violation of Section 42(3) FSS Act as the designated officer failed to send the report of RFL to the commissioner within a period of 14 days for obtaining sanction. Hon'ble Madras High Court in A. R. Khader Vs. Food Safety Officer, 2018 1 FAC 101 has quashed the prosecution for violation of Section 42(3) of FSS Act. Hence, the prosecution in the present case also is bad.
22. Lastly, the complainant/department has not impleaded M/s. Akshara Hospitality LLP as an accused. Only the nominee of the said company has been made an accused. The accused No. 2 i.e. Sh. Rajiv Kumar, in the capacity of nominee only, in the absence of the company could not have been made an accused in the present case. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in Venketaramanan Ramnath & Anr. Vs. State of M. P. & Anr., 2017 1 FAC 124.
23. In view of the above discussion, the accused Pravin Kumar, Rajiv Kumar and M/s. Pind Balluchi are acquitted of the Cr. Case No. 3373/2020 FSO Vs. PRAVIN KUMAR & ORS. Page No. 18/19 charges under Section U/s 26(1)(2)(i)(ii) r/w Section 3(1)(zz)(v)
(vii)(viii) punishable u/s 59(i) of FSS Act, 2006.
Digitally
signed by
PRANAV
Announced in open Court PRANAV JOSHI
JOSHI Date:
On this 08th Day of September, 2025 2025.09.08
17:35:47
+0530
(PRANAV JOSHI)
ACJM-01/NEW DELHI
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS
Cr. Case No. 3373/2020 FSO Vs. PRAVIN KUMAR & ORS. Page No. 19/19