Madras High Court
G.Irudhayanathan vs B.Ramakrishnan on 6 August, 2020
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.OP.No.774 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.08.2020
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.No.774 of 2020 and
Crl.MP.Nos.447 & 449 of 2020
G.Irudhayanathan ... Petitioner
Vs.
B.Ramakrishnan ... Respondent
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,
praying to call for records in C.C.No.177 of 2016 on the file of the
learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Kancheepuram and quash the same against
the petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Babu Muthu Meeran
For Respondent : Mr.S.Karthikeyan,
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
This criminal original petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.177 of 2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Kancheepuram having been taken cognizance for Page 1 of 10 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.OP.No.774 of 2020 the offences under Sections 52 and 59(i) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 .
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent did not follow the mandatory requirement under Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 before lodgement of the complaint as against the petitioner herein. Section 77 of Food Safety and Standards Act speaks about the limitation for prosecution and accordingly the limitation to initiate prosecution is one year from the date of commission of offence. The present impugned complaint has been lodged after period of 2 years since the alleged offence was committed on 31.07.2014 and the complaint was lodged only on 04.10.2016. There is absolutely no explanation for the delay and as such the complaint is directly hit under Section 77 of Food Safety and Standards Act.
2.1 He further submitted that under Section 42 of the said Act, certain procedures have to be followed for launching the prosecution. Accordingly, the Food Safety Officer after scrutiny of the Page 2 of 10 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.OP.No.774 of 2020 analysis report, he shall have to send his recommendations within 14 days from the date of analysis report to the Commissioner for sanctioning of prosecution. In the present case, the Food Laboratory report was received by the respondent on 18.02.2015. After receipt of the report, the Designated Officer, Kancheepuram District by his order dated 18.08.2015, asked for sanction to prosecute the petitioner herein. On receipt of the communication from the Designated Officer, the sanction authority accorded sanction on 14.03.2016. Thereafter, on 28.09.2016, the same authority accorded second sanction to prosecute the petitioner herein. Therefore, beyond the period of 14 days from the date of receipt of analysis report, the Designating Officer requested the Commissioner for sanction to prosecute the petitioner. Therefore, the entire complaint is vitiated and directly hit under Sections 42 and 77 of the said Act. Therefore, he sought for quashment of the entire proceedings.
3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the respondent inspected the first accused shop on 31.07.2014 and purchased Rich Roses Sherbet - Herbal Granules (Traditional Indian Page 3 of 10 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.OP.No.774 of 2020 Item) and the samples of the said product was sent for analysis to the Referral Food Laboratory. According to the said report, the sample has not confirmed due to the presence of caffeine in the said product. It is also not declared on the label, and thereby the said sample is unsafe and misbraned. After accorded sanction, the respondent filed complaint on 04.10.2016 before the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Kancheepuram. Therefore, all the mandatory provisions are duly followed by the respondent and lodged the complaint as against the petitioner and two others. Further he further submitted that all the points raised by the petitioner herein cannot be considered under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. since all are mixed question of facts and it can be considered only before the trial court during the trial. Therefore, he sought for dismissal of the quash petition.
4. Heard, Mr.M.Babu Muthu Meeran, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr.S.Karthikeyan, Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.
Page 4 of 10 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.OP.No.774 of 2020
5. There are totally three accused, in which the petitioner is arrayed as A2. According to the respondent, they visited the shop of the first accused on 31.07.2014 and purchased Rich Roses Sherbet - Herbal Granules (Traditional Indian Item). Thereafter, sent the sample of the said product for analysis and found that the sample is unsafe and misbranded. After accorded sanction from the Commissioner, complaint was lodged as against the petitioner and two others.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner raised two grounds that the complaint itself is directly barred by limitation under Section 77 of Food Safety and Standards Act. It is relevant to extract the provision under Section 77 of the said Act as follows:
"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 Page 5 of 10 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.OP.No.774 of 2020 years.” Accordingly, no court shall take cognizance of the offence under the Act after expiry of the period of one year from the date of commission of offence. The defacto complainant purchased the said product from the first accused shop on 31.07.2014. Thereafter, the complaint was lodged only on 04.10.2016 after period of two years. Further, it is also seen that there is no explanation for the delay in lodgement of the complaint.
Therefore, the complaint itself is barred by limitation as per provision under Section 77 of the said Act.
7. Another ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that under Section 42 of the said Act, the Food Safety Officer shall have to send his recommendation for prosecution within 14 days from the date of receipt of analysis report to the Commissioner. It is also relevant to extract the provision under Section 42 (3) of the said Act as follows:
"The Designated Officer after scrutiny of the report of Food Analyst shall decide as to whether the contravention is punishable with imprisonment or fine only and in the case of contravention punishable with Page 6 of 10 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.OP.No.774 of 2020 imprisonment, he shall send his recommendations within fourteen days to the Commissioner of Food Safety for sanctioning prosecution."
As per the above provision, on receipt of the analysis report, Food Safety Officer shall have to send his report within period of 14 days to the Commissioner of Food Safety for sanctioning prosecution against the accused. In the case on hand, the Central Food Laboratory sent its report on 18.02.2015. On receipt of the report, the Designated Officer / respondent sent his recommendation for according sanction only on 18.08.2015. On receipt of the same, the Commissioner of Food Safety accorded first sanction on 14.03.2016 and subsequently accorded second sanction on 28.09.2016. Therefore, the respondent failed to send his recommendation within period of 14 days from the date of receipt of food analysis report. Therefore, the respondent did not follow the mandatory provision as contemplated under Section 42(3) of the Food Safety and Standards Act.
8. Therefore, the present complaint cannot be sustained Page 7 of 10 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.OP.No.774 of 2020 as against the petitioner and it is liable to be quashed. Under these circumstances, the petitioner need not go for ordeal of the trial since the entire complaint is nothing but clear abuse of process of law.
9. In view of the above discussion, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.177 of 2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Kancheepuram is quashed as against the petitioner. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
06.08.2020 Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking/Non-Speaking order lok Page 8 of 10 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.OP.No.774 of 2020 To The learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Kancheepuram Page 9 of 10 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.OP.No.774 of 2020 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J lok Crl.O.P.No.774 of 2020 06.08.2020 Page 10 of 10 http://www.judis.nic.in