Full Text
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.611 OF 2021
Sanatkumar K. Jain … Applicant
Vs
The State of Maharashtra ... Respondents
…
Mr. K.H.Parekh i/by Mhatre & Associates for the
Applicant.
Mr. S.S.Hulke, APP for the Respondent-State.
ORAL JUDGMENT
2 Rule.
3 With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, matter is taken up for fnal hearing forthwith.
4 Food Safety Ofcer, Raigad Food and Drug Administration, Raigad, prosecuted applicant, Deputy General Manager of M/s. Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd. (Accused No.3-Company) for alleged violation of the provisions of Section 26(2)(i) and Section 20 read with 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.
5 The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alibag at District: Raigad issued the process on 15th July, 2015. Feeling aggrieved by this order, the applicant (Accused No.1) has approached this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
6 Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Prosecutor for the State.
7 The learned counsel for the applicant would submit that, where an ofence under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (‘Act’ for short) has been committed by the company, concern head or person in-charge of the establishment or branch or unit, ‘nominated’ by the company, is responsible for food safety and shall be liable for contravention in respect of such establishment, branch or unit. Thus, the learned counsel would rely on the 1st proviso to Section 66 of the Act. It is submitted that the company has nominated Mr. Amod Patil in terms of 1st proviso to Section 66 read with Rule 2.[5] of the Rules, who shall be responsible for food safety. The learned counsel has drawn my attention to Rule 2.[5] of the Food Safety and Standards Rules, 2011 and Form No.(ix) dated 21st February, 2014. Form No.(ix) shows that Amod Vilasrao Patil (accused no.2) has been appointed/nominated as person incharge of the establishment of the company at Village: Isambe, Savroli, Taluka: Khopoli, Dist: Raigad, responsible for food safety. Besides, the learned counsel has also invited my attention to the resolution passed in the meeting of Board of Directors held on 13th February, 2014 vide which Mr. Amod Patil was appointed as a nominee of the company for the plant at Village: Isambe under Section 66 of the Act and Rules on behalf of the company. It is, argued although the applicant is Deputy General Manager of the company, and allegedly, looking after Sales Division, there are no pleadings that the applicant was entrusted with the quality control of company’s product and/or control of day-to-day afairs of the company.
8 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor does not dispute a fact, that Mr. Amod Patil, is nominee of the company. Section 66 of the Food and Safety and Standards Act, 2006 reads as under:
9 Question, is whether, Applicant (accused no.1) could be proceeded, with for the violation of Food Safety Standards, when, Mr. Amod Patil, has been nominated by the company for ensuring Food Safety Standards, in terms of 1st Proviso to Section 66 read with Rule 2.[5] of the Food Safety and Standards Rules, 2011 Thus, in terms of the frst proviso, once a person is nominated in accordance with Rule 2.5.[1] of the Rules, such person shall be responsible for Food Safety and shall be liable for contravention in respect of such establishment, branch or unit. Herein, Amod Vilasrao Patil has been nominated which, fact is also evident from the complaint itself. Therefore, the complainant ought not to have proceeded against the applicant no.1. Apparently, the learned Magistrate did not advert to the provisions of frst proviso to Section 66 of the said Act and issued the process also against the accused no.1.
10 In consideration of the facts stated above, the order issuing the process against the applicant is quashed and set aside. However, this would not preclude the learned Magistrate from exercising the powers under Sub-section (2) of Section 66 of the Food Safety Act, which provides that when an ofence under the Act has been committed by the company and it is proved that ofence has been committed with consent or connivance or is attributed to any neglect on the part of any Director, Manager or Secretary or other ofcers of the company, such Director, Manager or Secretary shall also be deemed to be guilty of that ofence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.
11 For the reasons stated above, application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. Application is disposed of. (SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J.)