Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: Unsafe sample in Ramakant Gupta vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 12 May, 2016Matching Fragments
2. Facts necessary to judge the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned order are as under:-
2.1 That, on complaint made by the Station House Officer, Police Station-Kotwali, District Rajnandgaon against the petitioner herein for selling adulterated cow milk on 22.5.2012 at 12 at noon, the Food Safety Officer served notice and took sample of cow milk from the petitioner and prepared Form VA after making payment of cost of the milk and four samples were prepared containing each of 500 grams and out of four samples, one sample was sent for its analysis to the Food Analyst under Section 45 of the FSS Act of 2006. After analysis it was reported by the Food Analyst that sample is unsafe under the Act as per standard laid down under the Act of 2006 and Rules 2011 & Regulation made thereunder.
2.2 Against the report of the Food Analyst holding the sample to be unsafe; the petitioner herein preferred an appeal challenging the report of the Food Analyst dated 5.6.2012 before the Food Safety Officer and accordingly, second sample was sent to the Referral Food Laboratory, Pune on 12.7.2012 by the office of the Designated Officer, in which it was reported that sample does not conform to the standard of cow milk and thereafter it was reported to the Commissioner, Food Safety vide letter dated 24.8.2012.
5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, given thoughtful consideration to the submissions raised therein and also gone through the record with utmost circumspection.
6. A careful perusal of the order passed by the Adjudicating Officer would show that the said authority has relied upon two reports, first made by the Food Analyst dated 5.6.2012, whereby the said Food Analyst has held the sample to be unsafe under Section 3 (1) (a) (zz) (v) (xi) of the Act of 2006 and on appeal being preferred by the petitioner, it was referred to the Director, Referral Food Laboratory, Pune, in which, it has been held that sample does not conform to the standard of cow milk as per Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and Rules made thereunder. The Adjudicating Officer furher relied upon clause 2.1.8 of the Food Safety and Standards (Food Products Standards & Food Additives) Regulations, 2011 to hold that sample taken from the petitioner was of the sub-standard and it was violation of Section 26 (2) (i) of the FSS Act of 2006 punishable under Section 51 of the said Act for which 75,000/- is proper penalty which the petitioner is liable to pay for contravention of the provisions of the FSS Act of 2006.