Kerala High Court
Dharampalsatyapal Limited vs State Of Kerala on 6 March, 2024
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 16TH PHALGUNA, 1945
CRL.MC NO. 9210 OF 2023
AGAINST ST NO.622 OF 2015 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
PALAKKAD
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
DHARAMPALSATYAPAL LIMITED
98, OKHALA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,
PHASE III,
NEW DELHI PIN - 110002
THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE,
MR. SHIVAKUMAR V.R., SENIOR MANAGER,
BY ADVS.
SRI.DEEPAK DHINGRA
SRI.ANIL D. NAIR
ADV.AADITYA NAIR
SMT.TELMA RAJU
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2 THE COMMISSIONER OF FOOD SAFETY
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,
PALAKKAD CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
KERALA, PIN - 650014
BY ADVS.
SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE, ADGP
SMT.SREEJA V., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
28/02/2024, ALONG WITH Crl.MC Nos.8510/2023, 8244/2023 AND
7809/2023, THE COURT ON 06.03.2024 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C. No.9210/23 & Conn. Cases -:2:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 16TH PHALGUNA, 1945
CRL.MC NO. 8510 OF 2023
AGAINST ST NO.52 OF 2016 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
PALAKKAD
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL LIMITED
98, OKHALA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,
PHASE III,
NEW DELHI PIN - 110020
THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE,
MR. SIVAKUMAR. V.R,
ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER,
BY ADVS.
SRI.DEEPAK DHINGRA
SRI.ANIL D. NAIR
SMT.TELMA RAJU
SMT.ANJANA A.
ADV.AADITYA NAIR
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2 THE COMMISSIONER OF FOOD SAFETY
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, PALAKKAD CIRCLE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
KERALA, PIN - 695014
BY ADVS.
SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE, ADGP
SMT.SREEJA V., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 28/02/2024, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.9210/2023 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON 06.03.2024 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C. No.9210/23 & Conn. Cases -:3:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 16TH PHALGUNA, 1945
CRL.MC NO. 8244 OF 2023
AGAINST ST NO.623 OF 2015 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
PALAKKAD
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL LIMITED
98, OKHALA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,
PHASE III,
NEW DELHI PIN - 110020
THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE,
MR. SIVAKUMAR. V.R,
ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER,
BY ADVS.
SRI.DEEPAK DHINGRA
SRI.ANIL D. NAIR
SMT.TELMA RAJU
SMT.ANJANA A.
ADV.AADITYA NAIR
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2 THE COMMISSIONER OF FOOD SAFETY
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, PALAKKAD CIRCLE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
KERALA, PIN - 695014
BY ADVS.
SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE, ADGP
SRI.T.R.RANJITH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 28/02/2024, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.9210/2023 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON 06.03.2024 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C. No.9210/23 & Conn. Cases -:4:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 16TH PHALGUNA, 1945
CRL.MC NO. 7809 OF 2023
AGAINST ST NO.624 OF 2015 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
PALAKKAD
PETITIONER:
DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL LIMITED
98, OKHALA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,
PHASE III,
NEW DELHI PIN - 110020
THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE,
MR. SIVAKUMAR. V.R,
ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER,
BY ADVS.
SRI.DEEPAK DHINGRA
SRI.ANIL D. NAIR
SMT.TELMA RAJU
SMT.ANJANA A.
ADV.AADITYA NAIR
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2 THE COMMISSIONER OF FOOD SAFETY
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
KERALA., PIN - 695014
BY ADVS.
SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE, ADGP
SMT.SREEJA V., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 28/02/2024, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.9210/2023 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON 06.03.2024 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C. No.9210/23 & Conn. Cases -:5:-
"C.R."
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
----------------------------------------
Crl.M.(C) No.9210, 8510, 8244 & 7809 of 2023
------------------------------------------
Dated this the 6th day of March, 2024
ORDER
The question to be resolved is whether the time limit prescribed
under section 77 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (for brevity,
'the Act') for taking cognizance of offences under the Act can be extended
on the basis that the delay occurred due to 'procedural and administrative
reasons'.
2. Petitioner is a manufacturer of pan masala and is the accused in
four criminal cases pending as S.T. No.622/2015, S.T. No.623/2015, S.T.
No.624/2015 & S.T. No.52/2016, all before the Chief Judicial Magistrate's
Court, Palakkad. The prosecutions have been initiated alleging violation of
sections 3(zz)(v), 26(2)(i), 27(2)(c) and section 59 of the Act, read with
regulation 3.1.7(1) of the Food Safety and Standards and (Food Products
Standards and Additives) Regulations, 2011, (for short the Regulation).
These four criminal miscellaneous cases filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C
have challenged the prosecution of the petitioner in the above-referred
four cases.
3. In all the above cases except one, the product pan masala was
on analysis, detected with Magnesium Carbonate, while in S.T.
No.52/2016, the product was a mouth freshener called Pass-Pass, which
was found to contain Magnesium Carbonate and Monosodium Glutamate.
Both parties to this litigation agreed that Crl.M.C No. 9210 of 2023 can be
treated as the leading case, and hence, the facts of the said case are
referred to hereunder, unless otherwise indicated.
4. On 28-04-2013, a consignment of Pan Masala sold under the
brand name 'Rajanigandha' was seized at the Kerala check post, alleging
that they contained tobacco and nicotine, the sale of which is prohibited in
Kerala. After registration of different crimes before the Walayar Police
Station, the samples were sent for chemical analysis. The report of the
Food Analyst dated 20.09.2013 showed the test for nicotine and tobacco
as negative. However, Magnesium Carbonate was detected in small
quantities in the product.
5. On the basis of the aforenoted report dated 20-09-2013, the
Designated Officer issued a letter dated 21.03.2015 seeking sanction for
prosecuting the petitioner. By order dated 11.08.2015, the Commissioner
of Food Safety, Kerala (hereafter referred to as 'Commissioner' for short)
issued an order sanctioning prosecution after condoning the delay. The
reason for condoning the delay was stated as due to "procedural and
administrational delay". Pursuant to the above sanction, a complaint was
filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court on 22-09-2015 and
cognizance of the offence was taken and process was issued to the
petitioner.
6. Petitioner questioned the order, taking cognizance as well as the
order granting sanction for prosecution in Crl.M.C. No.4277/2022. A
learned single Judge of this Court, by order dated 15.07.2022, set aside
the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 11-01-2016 and directed
reconsideration. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, the petitioner
was also granted an opportunity to be heard. Pursuant to the above
direction, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate considered the matter
afresh and, by the impugned order dated 20.07.2023, held that the
prosecution had made out sufficient grounds for proceeding against the
accused.
7. Sri.Deepak Dhingra, learned counsel for the petitioner along with
Adv. Telma Raju contended that though the initial seizure of the pan
masala was on the allegation that the product contained nicotine and
tobacco, after the analysis, the Detecting Officer turned around and made
fresh allegations on the basis of the presence of Magnesium Carbonate.
According to the learned counsel, Magnesium Carbonate is only an anti-
caking agent, the presence of which occurs naturally due to the
ingredients in pan masala, and the same is not within the control of the
petitioner. Learned Counsel, however, confined his submissions to the
manner in which the Commissioner condoned the delay and contended
that the reason provided in the order of the Commissioner dated
11.08.2015 falls miserably short of any reason and the impugned order
had even failed to comprehend the spirit of the direction of this Court in
Crl.M.C. No.4277/2022. The learned counsel relied upon the decisions of
the Madras High Court in Crl.R.P. No.17767/2018, Crl.O.P. No.18881/2016
and Crl.O.P. No.18875/2016 to substantiate his contentions.
8. Sri. Grashious Kuriakose, the learned Additional Director General
of Prosecution, submitted that the time limit prescribed under section 77 of
the Act provides an outer time limit of three years and that a narrow
interpretation ought not to be adopted as it would stifle prosecutions under
the Act. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the period prescribed
therein should be treated as guidance and not as a mandatory
requirement. It was further submitted that in the light of section 41(2) of the
Act, provisions of sections 468 and 473 of the Cr.P.C are applicable, and
hence the delay can always be explained and condoned in the interests of
justice. The decision in Arun Vyas and Another v. Anita Vyas [(1999) 4
SCC 690] was relied upon to support his contentions.
9. To resolve the question mentioned in the exordium to this
judgment, it is necessary to refer to section 77 of the Act, which provides a
time limit of one year for taking cognizance of the offence. The said
provision, after prescribing a time limit of one year for prosecutions, carves
out a proviso, enabling the said time limit to be extended upto three years,
provided reasons are given in writing by the Commissioner for such
extension. For the purpose of better comprehension, section 77 of the Act
is extracted as below:
"S.77. Time limit for prosecutions.- Notwithstanding anything
contained in this Act, no court shall take cognizance of an
offence under this Act after the expiry of the period of one year
from the date of commission of an offence:
Provided that the Commissioner of Food Safety may, for
reasons to be recorded in writing, approve prosecution within
an extended period of up to three years."
10. In Annexure A14, it is seen that an FIR was registered on
28.04.2013 after the pan masala manufactured by the petitioner was
seized. Though the seized articles were subjected to an analysis and a
report dated 20.09.2013 was received, the Designated Officer issued a
letter to the Commissioner of Food Safety seeking sanction for
prosecution only on 21.03.2015. By that time itself, a period of one year
and six months had elapsed. Thereafter, by order dated 11.8.2015, the
Commissioner granted sanction to launch the prosecution. Another five
months had elapsed by then. The reason recorded in writing in the order
dated 11.08.2015 by the Commissioner of Food Safety reads as follows:
"In this case since the period of commission of offence is (sic) exceeds one year,
an extended period upto 30.09.2015 is sanctioned under section 77 of FSS Act
2006 to launch prosecution by the Food Safety Officer. The reason for according
extension of period is due to procedural and administrational delay."
11. Thus, the only reason mentioned to explain the delay is the
procedural and administrational delay. There is a complete absence of any
explanation of what is the procedural delay. No material has been referred
to in the order of the Commissioner to explain the nature of the
administrational delay or the factors responsible for such a delay.
12. The words 'procedural and administrational delay' are too vague
and obscure terms to be regarded as an explanation or as reasons for
delay. Those terms cannot signify a reason and are only broad
terminologies used to denote a title for the delay and not anything of
relevance or significance. When the statute expressly requires reasons to
be stated in writing, it mandates a precise reference to the causes for the
delay, which can be tested on the touchstone of relevancy or sufficiency by
a court of law.
13. The terms procedural and administrative delay have been the
subject of consideration by the courts under section 5 of the Limitation Act
1963. In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Amar Nath Yadav [(2014) 2 SCC
422], the Supreme Court had observed that it is time to inform all the
Government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they
have reasonable and acceptable explanations for the delay, and there was
a bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the
file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree
of procedural red-tapism in the process. The Government departments are
under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duty with
diligence and commitment. Similarly, in the decision Simplex
Infrastructure Limited v. Union of India [(2019) 2 SCC 455] Supreme
Court observed that administrative difficulties cannot be a valid reason to
condone delay.
14. Section 77 of the Act, which stipulates that prosecutions must
be launched within a period of one year, has significance. It entails the
Food Inspectors to act swiftly and without delay. It is also a measure of
fair and reasonable procedure prescribed under law before depriving the
liberty of an individual. When the statute prescribes a period of limitation
and carves out an exception from the main provision, the conditions
required to fall within the exception must be strictly adhered to. The
principle that penal statutes are to be interpreted strictly also has to be
followed. Therefore, as a measure of depriving the liberty of an individual
when the statute provides certain conditions to be satisfied, there cannot
be any scope for a liberal interpretation. The requirement for giving
reasons in writing enables the court to review whether the stated reasons
for extending the time for prosecution are legally and factually justifiable or
not.
15. In the instant case, the letter from the Designated Officer was
issued after a delay of 18 months. A further delay of five months from
21.03.2015 to 11.08.2015 at the office of the Commissioner has also not
been explained. The aforenoted delay is substantial and beyond the
period stipulated for taking cognizance. The reason for such a long delay
has not been indicated at all. In the absence of any reason for such a long
delay, the sanction becomes legally invalid. In the above circumstances,
this Court is of the view that the Commissioner had failed to record any
reason worth its name to extend the period stipulated under section 77 of
the Act for sanctioning the prosecution.
16. This Court is fortified in the above conclusion by the decisions of
the Madras High Court in Mondelez India Foods Private Limited and
Others v. A.Elankov (O.P. No.17767/2018), and that in P.Paneer Selvam
and Others v. Sri. Jaganadhan MANU/TN/1979/2022. In the former
decision, the Court observed that the delay caused in identifying the
address of the accused could not be treated as a valid administrative
reason. In the latter decision, another learned Single Judge observed that
the reference to administrative reasons without explaining the reason for
the delay is not sufficient to condone the delay.
17. Though the contention of the respondents regarding the
applicability of sections 468 and 473 was impressive, it is evident, on a
deeper scrutiny, that the said contention has no merit. The provisions of
Cr.P.C are made applicable as per section 41(2) of the Act. However, the
applicability is "as far as may be" and not in its entirety. The words "as far
as may be" indicate that the provisions of Cr.P.C. will apply only in the
absence of specific provisions in the Act. It is elementary that the general
law cannot override the specific provisions. When the Act stipulates that
the prosecution has to be launched within one year and the period can be
extended only for reasons to be recorded in writing, recourse to sections
468 and 473 of Cr.P.C, which are general provisions, is not legally
permissible. Further, extension of the period of limitation merely on the
ground that it is necessary to do so in the interest of justice and not on the
grounds of explained delay would be improper.
18. The learned Magistrate had mechanically issued the impugned
order without comprehending the purpose for which this Court remitted the
matter back to it. No reasons are forthcoming from the impugned order as
to the reason for condoning the delay.
19. Viewed in the above perspective, the proceedings initiated
against the petitioner in S.T. No.622/2015, before the Chief Judicial
Magistrate Court. Palakkad is liable to be quashed. Ordered accordingly.
Crl.M.C No. 8244/2023 and Crl.M.C No. 7809/2023
20. The proceedings in S.T. No.623/2015 and S.T. No.624/2015
before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Palakkad, which are challenged
in the above two cases, are also identically placed as that in ST. No.
622/2015. The product involved, the date of detection and the report, apart
from the letters and sanction order, are also the same. The reason
specified in the sanction orders is identical to that in S.T. No.622/2015.
Hence, the challenges raised in Crl.M.C No. 8244/2023 and Crl.M.C No.
7809/2023 are also to be allowed.
21. Thus, the complaints filed in S.T. No.623/2015 (Annexure A14 in
Crl.M.C No. 8244/2023) and S.T. No.624/2015 (Annexure A14 in Crl.M.C
No. 7809/2023) before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Palakkad are
hereby quashed.
22. Petitioner challenges the prosecution initiated in ST No. 52/2016
on the files of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palakkad. The product
involved is a mouth freshener under the brand name Pass-Pass,
manufactured by the petitioner. As in the other cases, the products were
seized, alleging that they contained tobacco and nicotine, but when the
samples were sent for chemical analysis, the report dated 17-10-2013
showed the test for nicotine and tobacco as negative but revealed the
presence of Magnesium Carbonate and Monosodium Glutamate.
Thereafter, a letter dated 22-10-2015 was issued seeking sanction for
prosecution and by order dated 16-11-2015, sanction was accorded.
Pursuant thereto, the complaint was instituted, and the learned CJM took
cognizance of the complaint by its order dated 25-02-2016, which is
challenged in this petition under section 482 Cr.P.C.
23. In Annexure 2 order granting sanction for prosecution, the
Commissioner has extended the period for the following reason: "Therefore
considering that the need for extension of period is due to the various procedural
and adminstrational delay and insufficient staff strength of department an
extended time up to 30-12-2015 from the date of commission of the offence is
sanctioned to Food Safety Officer for filing prosecution". The only difference
from the other cases already considered is the addition of the words
'insufficient staff strength of the department' in the present case.
24. The analyst report in the instant case is dated 17-10-2013, while
the letter seeking sanction was issued only on 22-10-2015, and the
sanction was accorded on 16-11-2015. The reasons for extending the
period are not valid as has already been considered in the earlier three
cases. Insufficient staff strength also cannot be a valid reason to extend
the period. Thus, the summons issued to the petitioner in ST No.52/2016
on the files of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palakkad, is illegal, and the
court erred in taking cognizance.
25. Therefore, the order dated 25-02-2016 issuing summons to the
petitioner in S.T. No.52/2016 on the files of the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Palakkad, is hereby quashed.
These criminal miscellaneous cases are allowed.
Sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
JUDGE
vps
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure-A-1 COPY OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
20.7.2023 PASSED BY CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, PALAKKAD IN S.T. NO. 622 OF
Annexure-A-2 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 22.5.2012
Annexure 3 TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR DATED 25.5.2012
ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO. 2 WITH TYPED
COPY
Annexure A 3 (a) TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR DATED 29.5.2012
ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO. 2 WITH TYPED
COPY
Annexure-A-4 TRUE COPY OF WRIT PETITION NO.
12932/2012 FILED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT
Annexure-A-5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 2ND
AUGUST, 2012 IN W.P. (C) NO.12932 OF
2012 (N) PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT
Annexure-A-6 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 3RD OCTOBER,
2012 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN
W.A. NO. 1685/2012 IN W.P. (C) NO.
Annexure-A-7 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO. 524/2013 DATED
28TH APRIL, 2013
Annexure-A-8 TRUE COPY OF THE W.P. NO. 14199/2013
FILED BY THE PETITIONER.
Annexure-A-9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 8TH JULY,
2013 IN W.P. (C) NO.14199 OF 2013 (Y)
PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SINGLE JUDGE OF
THIS HON'BLE COURT
Annexure-A-10 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 29TH
OCTOBER, 2013 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE
Annexure-A-11 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL. M. P.
4625/ 2013 OF CRIME NO. 524/2013 DATED
7TH AUGUST, 2013 PASSED BY THE COURT OF
LEARNED MAGISTRATE
Annexure-A-12 TRUE COPY OF FORM-VA DATED 7TH
SEPTEMBER, 2013 ISSUED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.2
Annexure-A-13 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SIGNED ON 20TH
SEPTEMBER, 2013 BY THE FOOD ANALYST.
Annexure-A-14 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11TH AUGUST,
2015 BEARING NO. DE 1448/2015/CFS
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Annexure-A-15 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY
RESPONDENT NO. 2 ON 22ND SEPTEMBER
2015, IN THE COURT OF LD. CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE.
Annexure-A-16 COPY OF THE ORDER IN ST 622/ 2015 DATED
11.1.2016 PASSED BY THE LD. COURT OF
CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, PALAKKAD
Annexure-A-17 COPY OF COMPLETE ORDER SHEET IN ST 622/
2015 FROM 18/11/2015 TILL 17/2/2022 OF
THE LD. COURT OF CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, PALAKKAD.
Annexure-A-18 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 08TH
OCTOBER, 2021 IN W.P. (C) NO.5342/2021
PASSED BY HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
AT ASSAM.
Annexure-A-18(a) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21.09.2016
IN CRIMINAL REVISION NO.263 OF 2016
PASSED BY HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF
UTTRAKHAND AT NAINITAL.
Annexure-A-19 A TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT
FILED BY UNION OF INDIA BEFORE THE
DIVISION BENCH OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF
JHARKHAD IN W.P. (C) NO.3346 OF 2022.
Annexure-A-19(a) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
28.8.2023 PASSED BY DIVISION BENCH OF
HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAD IN W.P.
(C) NO.3346 OF 2022.
Annexure-A-20 TRUE COPY OF CRIMINAL MISC. CASE NO.
4277/2022 FILED BY PETITIONER BEFORE
THIS HON'BLE COURT.
Annexure-A-21 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
15.7.2022 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT
IN CRL. M.C. NO. 4277 OF 2022 .
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure 1 TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS OF CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, PALAKKD IN
CASE NO.ST/0500052/2016.
Annexure 2 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 16.11.2015
ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO. 2.
Annexure 3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION BEARING
NO. 3944/13 DATED 13TH NOVEMBER, 2013
RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER.
Annexure 4 TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION DATED 22ND
MAY, 2012 BEARING NO. A/1327/2012/CFS
Annexure 5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE
PETITIONER DATED 5.12.2013.
Annexure 6 TRUE COPY OF THE SAID ORDER DATED
21.12.2013 ISSUED BY THE DESIGNATED
OFFICER, PALAKKAD
Annexure 7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
30.1.2014 PASSED IN W.P. (C) NO.980 OF
Annexure 8 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT
ISSUED BEFORE THE DESIGNATED OFFICER,
PALAKKAD
Annexure-9 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 27.8.2014
SENT BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF
FOOD SAFETY, PALAKKAD TO THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
Annexure-10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.2.2015
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Annexure-11 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF
DESIGNATED-CUM-ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF
FOOD SAFETY TO THE DIRECTOR, REFERRAL
FOOD LABORATORY, KOLKOTTA
Annexure-12 TRUE COPY OF CRL. M.C.NO.4277 OF 2022
FILED BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT
Annexure-12(a) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL.
M.C.NO.4277 OF 2022 DATED 15.7.2022
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure-1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 22.05.2022
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Annexure-1(a) TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 25.5.2012
ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO. 2 TO THE
DESIGNATED OFFICER.
Annexure-2 TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR NO.A-1327/12/CPS
DATED 29.05.2012 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
Annexure-3 TRUE COPY OF THE WRIT PETITION NO.12932
OF 2012
Annexure-4 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 2.8.2012 IN
W.P.(C) NOS. 12932/2012.
Annexure-5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 3RD
OCTOBER, 2012 IN W.A. NO.1685/2012
Annexure-6 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO. 524/2013 DATED
28TH APRIL, 2013
Annexure-7 TRUE COPY OF THE WRIT PETITION NO.14199
OF 2013
Annexure-8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 8.7.2013
IN WRIT PETITION NO.14199 OF 2013
Annexure-9 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 29TH
OCTOBER, 2013 IN W.A. NO.1186 OF 2013
Annexure-10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 7TH
AUGUST, 2013 PASSED BY THE COURT OF
LEARNED MAGISTRATE
Annexure-11 TRUE COPY OF COPY OF FORM - VA DATED
7TH SEPTEMBER, 2013 WHICH SHOWS
COLLECTION OF SAMPLES FROM THE COURT
Annexure-12 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT ON 20TH
SEPTEMBER, 2013 OF THE ANALYST.
Annexure-13 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11TH
AUGUST, 2015 BEARING NO. DE
1453/2015/CFS ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT
Annexure-14 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO. 2 DATED 22.09.2015
Annexure-15 TRUE COPY OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
11/02/2016 OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE COURT, PALAKKAD.
Annexure-16 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLETE ORDER SHEET
FROM 18/11/2015 TILL 17/2/2022
Annexure-17 TRUE COPY OF THE CHART SHOWING THE
PERMITTED USE OF MGCO3 IN ITEMS OF FOOD
Annexure-18 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 8TH
OCTOBER, 2021 PASSED BY HON'BLE HIGH
COURT OF GUHATI AT ASSAM IN W.P.(C)
NO.5342 OF 2021.
Annexure-18(a) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21.09.2016
PASSED BY HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND IN CRIMINAL REVISION NO.263
OF 2016
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure-1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 22.05.2012
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Annexure-2 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 25.5.2012
ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO. 2 TO THE
DESIGNATED OFFICER.
Annexure-2(a) TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR NO.A-1327/12/CPS
DATED 29.05.2012 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT
Annexure-3 TRUE COPY OF THE WRIT PETITION NO.12932
OF 2012
Annexure-4 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 2.8.2012 IN
W.P.(C) NOS. 12932/2012.
Annexure-5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 3RD
OCTOBER, 2012 IN W.A. NO.1685/2012
Annexure-6 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO. 524/2013 DATED
28TH APRIL, 2013
Annexure-7 TRUE COPY OF THE WRIT PETITION NO.14199
OF 2013
Annexure-8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 8.7.2013
IN WRIT PETITION NO.14199 OF 2013
Annexure-9 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 29TH
OCTOBER, 2013 IN W.A. NO.1186 OF 2013
Annexure-10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 7TH
AUGUST, 2013 PASSED BY THE COURT OF
LEARNED MAGISTRATE
Annexure-11 TRUE COPY OF COPY OF FORM - VA DATED
7TH SEPTEMBER, 2013 WHICH SHOWS
COLLECTION OF SAMPLES FROM THE COURT
Annexure-12 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT ON 12TH
SEPTEMBER, 2013 OF THE ANALYST.
Annexure-13 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11TH
AUGUST, 2015 BEARING NO. DE
1453/2015/CFS ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT.
Annexure-14 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE
Annexure-15 TRUE COPY OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
11/02/2016 OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE COURT, PALAKKAD.
Annexure-16 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLETE ORDER SHEET
FROM 18/11/2015 TILL 17/2/2022
Annexure-17 TRUE COPY OF THE CHART SHOWING THE
PERMITTED USE OF MGCO3 IN ITEMS OF FOOD
Annexure-18 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11TH
OCTOBER, 2021 PASSED BY HON'BLE HIGH
COURT OF GUHATI AT ASSAM IN W.P.(C)
NO.5342 OF 2021.
Annexure-18(a) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21.09.2016
PASSED BY HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND IN CRIMINAL REVISION NO.263
OF 2016
