Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

ii. Central Food Laboratory, Kolkata, Extension Centre Raxaul, Bihar in vide their Certificate No. INF/CFL/KOL/RXL/19/FEB-68 reported that:-

"The sample of Betel Nut were tested as per Standard Food Safety norms falling under regulation No. 2.12 85 Patna High Court CWJC No.6657 of 2019 dt.05-09-2019 2.3.47 (5) of Food Safety Standards (Food Products Standards 85 Food Additives) Regulations, 2011 and found non-conforming to the standards due to presence of fungal growth, Damaged Betel Nuts and presence of Insects. Thus the sample is 'unsafe food' under Section 3(I)(ZZ)(ix) of FSS Act, 2006."

iii. To ascertain the country of origin of the seized goods, further investigation viz. verification of buyer/seller and their actual work profile from jurisdictional Commissionerate, verification of documents submitted by the truck driver at the time of interception of the tuck etc. are being done by the Division office, Forbesganj.

9. That M/s J. K. Traders (Petitioner) vide his letter dated 14.02.2019 requested for Provisional Release of the seized Arecanuts which was denied by the competent authority in view of test report of seized Areca Nut / Betel Nut given by both the test labs i.e. (1.) Arecanut Research & Development Foundation, Varanashi Towers, Mission Street, Mangalore, Karnataka and (2.) Central Food Laboratory, Kolkata, Extension Centre Raxaul, Bihar in which it has been reported that "the sample is 'unsafe food' for human consumption."

22. Further the test report of the 'CFL' reported reads as under:

"The sample of Betel Nut were tested as per Standard Food Safety norms failing under regulation No. 2.12 & 2.3.47 (5) of Food Safety and Standards (Food Products Standard & Food Additives) Regulations, 2011 and found non-conforming to the standards due to presence of Damaged Betel Nuts and Added Colouring matter. Thus the sample is 'unsafe food' under section 3(I)(ZZ)

26. This Court finds that in the present case the request of the petitioner to release the Betel Nuts have been rejected on a totally different ground. In paragraph 26 of the counter affidavit respondents have come out with the following statements:

"26. That in the view of the statements made in paragraph no. 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67 and 68 of the writ petition under reply, it is humbly stated and submitted that it is pertinent to mention that facts and circumstance of the instant case are not identical to the facts and circumstances for the cases referred by the petitioner in his application. In the instant case respondent has placed reliance upon the test report given by the two test labs, in which it has been reported that "the sample is 'unsafe food' for human consumption; while in any of the cases referred by the petitioner no such report was available at that point of time. In view of the same it would not be appropriate to release the seized goods for human consumption."