Food Safety & Standards Act| Date Of Offence Is When Food Analyst’s Report Is Received, Not When Sample Is Collected: Allahabad HC
The Allahabad High Court has clarified that an offence under the Food Safety & Standards Act is committed on the date on which the Food Analyst's report is received, not when the sample is collected.
The Court dismissed the petition filed by M/S Kewal Dairy (Applicant) seeking to quash proceedings initiated under Sections 51 and 59(i) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (the Act). The Court upheld the prosecution for selling sub-standard and unsafe milk, rejecting the contention that the proceedings were time-barred under Section 468 of the CrPC.
A Single Bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal observed, “So far as the contention of counsel for the applicant that the offence is punishable for one year and because of Section 468 Cr.P.C., the cognizance cannot be taken after one year is concerned, is incorrect because as per Section 77 of the Act, 2006 prosecution even after one year can be approved by the Commissioner, Food Safety and the same has already been approved by the Commissioner by order dated 20.06.2019. The specific provision of extension of limitation provided under Section 77 of the Act, 2006 will prevail over Section 468 Cr.P.C. because of Section 89 of the Act, 2006.”
Advocate Mohd. Naushad Siddiqui appeared for the Applicant, while AGA Pankaj Saxena represented the Opposite Party.
The Applicant’s milk sample was collected by the Food Safety Officer and was sent for analysis. A report dated declared it sub-standard. On appeal, the sample underwent fresh analysis, and the second report also declared the milk as ‘sub-standard and unsafe’.
Based on these findings, the Food Safety Officer sought approval from the Commissioner under Section 77 of the Act, which was granted leading to the filing of a complaint.
The Applicant argued that the proceedings were barred by the one-year limitation period under Section 468 of the Cr.P.C. It was argued that even if the limitation was extended to three years under Section 77 of the Act, the Commissioner failed to record reasons for the extension.
The High Court held that the offence was committed when the Food Analyst's report declaring the milk unsafe was received while rejecting the Applicant’s argument that the date of commission of the offence was the date of sample collection.
The Bench referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Rajasthan v. Sanjay Kumar (1998) wherein it was held that the commission of offence would be the date on which the report of Government Analyst was received.
Reiterating the same principle, the Court observed, “Ratio of State of Rajasthan vs Sanjay Kumar (supra) is also applicable in the Act, 2006 because, at the time of collection of a sample of food, no offence can be said to be committed as there is no prohibition to sell food which is not prohibited. It is only when Food Analyst Report received about unfit/unsafe food, offence can be said to be committed. In case of sell of unsafe or sub-standard milk, the date of commission of offence would be the date when the report of Food Analyst is received about its quality.”
The Court also referred to the decision in the Ram Nath v. State of Uttar Pradesh, wherein the Apex Court held that the Act had an overriding effect over other laws including the CrPC.
Consequently, the Court held, “In view of the above, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned order as well as impugned proceeding. Accordingly, the present application is dismissed.”
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Application.
Cause Title: M/S Kewal Dairy v. State of U.P. & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC:177238)
Appearance:
Applicant: Advocates Mohd. Naushad Siddiqui and Bipin Kumar
Opposite Party: AGA Pankaj Saxena