FSS Act | Date of Offence Would Be When Food Analyst Report Is Received, Not When Sample Was Collected: Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court has held that under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, the date of commission of an offence is determined by the receipt of the food analyst's report about unfit/unsafe food and not by the date when the sample of food is collected. The High Court clarified that in the case of the sale of unsafe or substandard milk, the date of commission of the offence would be when the Food Analyst's report about its quality is received, not the date when the sample was collected. A bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal observed thus while relying upon the Supreme Court's ruling in the case of State of Rajasthan vs Sanjay Kumar and others 1998, wherein it was held that considering Section 469 of CrPC, for purposes of the Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940, the date of commission of offence would be the date on which the report of Government Analyst was received. With this, the Court dismissed a Section 482 CrPC plea moved by M/S Kewal Dairy seeking quashing of an order passed by Metropolitan Magistrate-1st, Kanpur Nagar, as well as the entire proceeding of the Complaint Case under Sections 51 and 59(i) of the 2006 Act. The case in brief In brief, the food safety officer collected the milk sample from the applicant's premises on November 24, 2017. After that, the sample was sent to the Food Analyst at Regional Food Laboratory Medical College Campus, Meerut, for analysis. The first report, received on December 10, 2017, confirmed that the milk was substandard. Subsequently, a notice was issued to the applicant, who filed the appeal before the designated officer against the report of the food analyst, which was allowed, and the sample was again sent for fresh analysis. In the second report received on April 25, 2018, the milk sample was again found to be substandard and unsafe. Thus, on May 14, 2018, the Food Safety Officer applied for prosecution approval, which was granted on June 20, 2019. After that, the impugned complaint was filed on July 4, 2019. Now, the applicant contended that the impugned proceeding is barred by limitation as in the present case, the sample was collected on November 24, 2017, but the complaint was filed on July 04, 2019, after over a year. Therefore, given Section 468 CrPC, the court was barred from taking cognisance. On the other hand, the AGA submitted that after the enforcement of the 2006 Act, a special provision regarding taking cognizance under the Act, 2006, has been provided under Section 77 of the Act, 2006, which provides that the court will not take cognizance of the offence under the Act after the expiry of one year from the date of commission of the offence. However, it was further submitted that, for reasons to be recorded by the Commissioner of Food Safety, the aforesaid one-year period can be extended up to three years. Thus, it was contended that in such cases, Section 468 CrPC will not be applicable when the specific provision is there because Section 89 of Act 2006 specifically provides that this Act will override all other Acts. High Court's observations Against the backdrop of these submissions, referring to the Top Court's 1998 judgment in the case of Sanjay Kumar (supra), the Court observed that the date of commission of offence would be December 10, 2017, when the sample report was received. Further, the Court noted that in the instant case, the application for seeking prosecution approval was submitted on May 14, 2018, and approval was granted on June 20, 2019; therefore, the period between May 14, 2018, and June 20, 2019, would be excluded because of Section 470(3) CrPC, which provides that the time taken by the Sanctioning Authority to give sanction has to be excluded while computing limitation. Therefore, the Court concluded that the complaint, filed on July 4, 2019, was filed within one year from the date of commission of offence (December 10, 2017) as the period between May 14, 2018, and June 20, 2019, would have to be excluded. Further, the Court added that if it is considered that the complaint was filed after one year from the date of commission of offence, even then, the same would not be barred by limitation as Section 77 of the 2006 Act allows for an extension of up to three years if the Commissioner of Food Safety records specific reasons for the delay in prosecution. The Court emphasised that in the case at hand, the Commissioner had granted approval for prosecution within three years from the date of the offence, with reasons documented and thus, the applicant's contention that the prosecution was time-barred after one year was liable to be rejected. “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...

FSS Act | Date of Offence Would Be When Food Analyst Report Is Received, Not When Sample Was Collected: Allahabad HC

Sparsh Upadhyay

Tags