Case Note & Summary
The Bombay High Court at Aurangabad, through a common judgment, allowed three criminal writ petitions challenging the validity of criminal proceedings initiated under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. The petitioners, including Ganesh Pandurang Jadhao, Shankar Kanhaiyalal Lalwani, and Sk. Sujauddin Sk. Khaliluddin, were accused of selling adulterated food items. The core issue was the failure of the Food Safety Officers to comply with the mandatory sampling procedure under Section 47 of the Act and Rule 2.4.2 of the Manual of Procedures. Specifically, after the samples were taken, the petitioners requested that the samples be sent to the Central Food Laboratory for analysis, but the authorities did not comply. The court held that this non-compliance vitiated the entire prosecution, as the right to have the sample analyzed by the Central Food Laboratory is a substantive right of the accused. The court quashed the criminal proceedings in all three petitions, emphasizing that the mandatory procedures under the Act must be strictly followed. The judgment underscores the importance of procedural safeguards in food safety prosecutions.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of FIR - Inherent Powers under Section 482 CrPC - High Court can quash proceedings if continuation amounts to abuse of process - Held that where mandatory statutory procedures are not followed, proceedings are liable to be quashed (Paras 1-10). B) Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 - Sampling Procedure - Section 47 - Right of accused to have sample analyzed by Central Food Laboratory - Failure to send sample to Central Food Laboratory despite request vitiates prosecution - Held that non-compliance with Section 47 and Rule 2.4.2 of the Manual of Procedures renders the entire proceedings invalid (Paras 11-20). C) Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 - Manual of Procedures - Rule 2.4.2 - Mandatory requirement to send sample to Central Food Laboratory upon request - Non-compliance leads to quashing of complaint - Held that the right under Section 47 is substantive and cannot be denied (Paras 21-30).
Issue of Consideration
Whether criminal proceedings under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, can be sustained when the mandatory sampling procedure under Section 47 of the Act and Rule 2.4.2 of the Manual of Procedures is not followed, specifically when the sample is not sent to the Central Food Laboratory for analysis upon the accused's request.
Final Decision
The court allowed the criminal writ petitions and quashed the criminal proceedings in all three cases, holding that the non-compliance with the mandatory sampling procedure under Section 47 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and Rule 2.4.2 of the Manual of Procedures rendered the prosecution invalid.
Law Points
- Mandatory sampling procedure
- Non-compliance with statutory requirements
- Right to have sample analyzed by Central Food Laboratory
- Quashing of criminal proceedings
- Food Safety and Standards Act
- 2006
- Manual of Procedures
