Case Note & Summary
Background: This criminal application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 arose from a prosecution initiated by the Food Safety Officer, Raigad Food and Drug Administration against the applicant, Sanatkumar K. Jain, Deputy General Manager of M/s. Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd., for alleged violation of Sections 26(2)(i) and 20 read with Section 3(1)(zz)(xii) punishable under Sections 59 and 66 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and Food Safety and Standards (Food Products and Standards and Food Additives) Regulations, 2011. The company was Accused No.3, the applicant was Accused No.1, and one Amod Vilasrao Patil was Accused No.2. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alibag, District Raigad issued process on 15 July 2015, which the applicant sought to quash. Facts: The company nominated Mr. Amod Patil as person in-charge of its establishment at Village Isambe, Savroli, Taluka Khopoli, District Raigad, responsible for food safety, as evidenced by Form No.(ix) dated 21 February 2014 and a resolution of the Board of Directors passed on 13 February 2014. The applicant was Deputy General Manager, allegedly looking after Sales Division; the complaint did not allege that he was entrusted with quality control or day-to-day affairs of the company. Legal Issues: Whether the applicant could be proceeded against for violation of food safety standards when the company had nominated another person under the first proviso to Section 66 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 read with Rule 2.5.1 of the Food Safety and Standards Rules, 2011; and whether the Magistrate's order issuing process should be quashed. Arguments: The applicant contended that under the first proviso to Section 66, where a company has different establishments or branches or different units, the concerned head or person in-charge of such establishment nominated by the company as responsible for food safety shall be liable for contravention in respect of that establishment. Since Mr. Amod Patil was nominated and this fact was evident from the complaint itself, the Magistrate ought not to have issued process against the applicant. The Additional Public Prosecutor did not dispute that Mr. Amod Patil was the nominee of the company. Court's Analysis: The court examined Section 66 of the Act, particularly the first proviso. It noted that once a person is nominated in accordance with Rule 2.5.1, such person shall be responsible for food safety and liable for contravention in respect of the establishment. The court found that the learned Magistrate did not advert to the provisions of the first proviso to Section 66 and issued process against accused no.1 despite the nomination. The court also observed that quashing the process against the applicant would not preclude the Magistrate from exercising powers under Section 66(2), which provides for liability of directors, managers, secretaries or other officers when the offence is committed with their consent or connivance or is attributable to their neglect. Decision: The court allowed the application in terms of prayer clause (a), quashed and set aside the order issuing process against the applicant, made Rule absolute, and disposed of the application. The judgment primarily favored the accused/applicant.
Headnote
A) Food Safety Law - Offences by Companies - Nominated Person's Exclusive Liability - Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, Section 66 and Food Safety and Standards Rules, 2011, Rule 2.5.1 - The applicant, Deputy General Manager of the accused company, challenged process issued by Magistrate, contending that company nominated Mr. Amod Patil as person in-charge under first proviso to Section 66 read with Rule 2.5.1; Form No.(ix) and Board resolution evidenced nomination - Held that once a person is nominated as responsible for food safety, that person alone shall be liable for contravention in respect of that establishment; the Magistrate ought not to have proceeded against the applicant and the process was quashed (Paras 7-10). B) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of Process - Vicarious Liability of Directors and Officers - Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, Section 66(2); Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 482 - The court clarified that quashing process against the applicant did not preclude the Magistrate from exercising powers under Section 66(2) if offence was committed with consent, connivance or neglect of any director, manager, secretary or other officer - Held that such officer could be proceeded against accordingly (Paras 10-11).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the applicant (accused no.1) could be proceeded against for violation of Food Safety Standards when the company had nominated Mr. Amod Patil as person responsible for food safety under first proviso to Section 66 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 read with Rule 2.5.1 of the Food Safety and Standards Rules, 2011; and whether the Magistrate's order issuing process should be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Final Decision
Application allowed in terms of prayer clause (a); order issuing process against the applicant quashed and set aside; Rule made absolute; application disposed of. Magistrate not precluded from exercising powers under Section 66(2) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 if consent, connivance or neglect is proved.
Law Points
- First proviso to Section 66 Food Safety and Standards Act
- 2006
- Rule 2.5.1 Food Safety and Standards Rules
- 2011
- Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure
- 1973
- nominated person exclusively liable for food safety contravention
- Magistrate must consider nomination before issuing process
- Section 66(2) available for directors and officers if consent
- connivance or neglect proved
