Dismissed

K.Ramesh v. The Food Safety Officer

Madras HC7 Jun 2023CRL OP(MD)/1840/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Criminal Original Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court rejected arguments regarding procedural non-compliance under the Food Safety Act. The court held that questions concerning substandard versus unsafe food quality and procedural delays are triable facts to be decided by the trial court.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Original Petition to quash the charge sheet and connected Miscellaneous Petitions were dismissed and closed.

K.Ramesh Vs The Food Safety Officer — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1840 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Reserved on : 20.04.2023

¶4

Delivered on : 07.06.2023

¶5

CORAM:

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.THARANI

¶7

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.1840 of 2021 and Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos.905 & 906 of 2021

¶8

K.Ramesh ... Petitioner / Accused No.2

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.The State Represented through The Food Safety Officer, Madurai Corporation,

¶11

Code No.572, O/o. Designated Officer,

¶12

Tamil Nadu Food Safety and

¶13

Drugs Administration,

¶14

Viswanathapuram, Madurai-625 014. ... 1^st respondent / Complainant 2.R.Duraiarasan ... 2^nd respondent /Accused No.1

¶15

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, to call for the records in connection with the impugned charge sheet in S.T.C.No.5662 of 2020, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.1, Madurai, Madurai District and to quash the same insofar as the petitioner is concerned.

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/6

¶17

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1840 of 2021

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sarvagan Prabhu For Respondents : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for R1 : Mr.S.Chandrasekaran for R2

¶19

O RDER

¶20

This petition is filed to quash the charge sheet in S.T.C.No. 5662 of 2020, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.1, Madurai, Madurai District.

¶21

The allegation against the petitioner is that the complainant being a Food Safety Officer of Madurai Corporation, went for surprise inspection, on 05.02.2020, at about 12.20 pm.,and he inspected the shop of A1 and he took samples of Jaggery kept for sale. By following due process, the samples were taken and sent for examination and report was received on 16.03.2020, stating that the Food sample was sub-standard quality and unsafe. Therefore, the complainant after getting approval from the Commissioner of Food Safety, initiated proceedings and the case was registered.

¶22

On the side of the petitioner, it is stated that the respondent registered the case under Sections 51 and 59(i) of the Food

¶23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/6

¶24

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1840 of 2021

¶25

Safety and Standards Act, without proper investigation. Procedures were not duly followed. The complaint is in violation of Sections 42(2) and 42(4) of the Food Safety and Standards Act. The allegations are perverse in nature and they did not disclose any offence and the grounds are insufficient to proceed against the petitioner.

¶26

The analysts, who gave a report that the quantity of the

¶27

Food is sub-standard, cannot certify the product as unsafe. Substandard and unsafe food are two different allegations and they won't go together. The products should be sent for analysts within 4 days, and the report

¶28

should be filed within 14 days. As per Section 43 of the Act, recommendation for filing the case has to be sent within 14 days, but, the recommendation was sent after a period of six months, which is in violation of the Act.

¶29

On the side of the prosecution, it is sated that 2 Kgs of Jaggery was taken from the shop of the petitioner and one pack of the sample was sent for analysis on 02.06.20 and the report was received on 11.03.2020. The percentage of the Sulfar-di-Oxide is more and the product is substandard and unsafe. Notice was given to the petitioner,

¶30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/6

¶31

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1840 of 2021

¶32

there was no representation for him. The petitioner failed to avail the remedy by sending the second set for analysis. The delay in getting the sanction for filing the case is not fatal. There is no delay on the part of the sanctioning authority in sanctioning permission to prosecute the petitioner.

¶33

On the side of the second respondent, it is stated that the

¶34

second respondent is a retailer, who purchase the product from the petitioner and he was impleaded only as a formal part.

¶35

Whether the seized articles were of substandard quality or unsafe food, whether the delay in sending the recommendation for sanction is fatal to the case can be decided only at the time of trial.

¶36

In the above circumstances, this petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶37

NCC : Yes/No 07.06.2023 Index : Yes/No Ls

¶38

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/6

¶39

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1840 of 2021

¶40

¶41

1.The Judicial Magistrate Court No.1,

¶42

Madurai, Madurai District.

¶43

The Food Safety Officer, Madurai Corporation, Code No.572, O/o.Designated Officer, Tamil Nadu Food Safety and Drugs Administration, Viswanathapuram, Madurai-625 014.

¶44

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶45

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/6

¶46

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1840 of 2021

¶47

R.THARANI. J.

¶48

¶49

Pre-delivery order made in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1840 of 2021

¶50

07.06.2023

¶51

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/6

K.Ramesh v. The Food Safety Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Ramesh v. The Food Safety Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Selvi Vs The Inspector of Police

S.Parimukilan Vs The Inspector of Police

Saraswathi Vs The Inspector of Police

Vijaya lekshmi Vs The Inspector of Police

Saravana Karthick Vs The Inspector of Police

P.Valarmathi Vs The Inspector of Police