Madhya Pradesh High Court
Suresh Chand Gupta vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 April, 2025
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7857
1 MSA-17-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 4 th OF APRIL, 2025
MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL No. 17 of 2025
SURESH CHAND GUPTA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sanjay Kumar Bahirani - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri G. K. Agrawal - Government Advocate for the State.
ORDER
This appeal under Section 71(6) of Food Safety and Standards Act,
2006 (in short, FSSA) has been filed against the order dated 27/02/2025
passed by Food Safety Tribunal/Ist District Judge, Morena in MJC
No.31/2024 by which application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act has
been rejected on the ground of delay and as a consequence thereof, the appeal
was dismissed as barred by time, resulting in confirmation of order dated
21/02/2023 passed by Adjudicating Officer, Morena in Case
No.38/2021/Food Safety by which a fine of Rs.2,00,000/- has been imposed
on account of violation of Section 26 of FSSA.
2. According to prosecution case, the premises of appellant was
inspected and 60 Kg of Khoa was found in the shop. Sample was collected
and as per laboratory report, it was found substandard. Accordingly, a
complaint under Section 5 of FSSA was filed. Complaint was decided by
Additional District Magistrate cum Adjudicating Officer, Morena by order
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7857
2 MSA-17-2025
dated 21/02/2023 passed in case No.38/2021/Food Safety and it was held that
Khoa found in the shop of appellant was of substandard quality and a penalty
of Rs.2,00,000/- was imposed.
3. Being aggrieved by the said order, it appears that appellant filed an
appeal on 18/03/2024 i.e. after approximately 13 months. An application
under Section 5 of Limitation Act was also filed. In the application filed
under Section 5 of Limitation Act, it is submitted that since, appellant was
busy in the treatment of his brother Sanjay Gupta and was mentally disturbed,
therefore, he could not prefer the appeal. However, during the course of
arguments, an additional ground was raised by counsel for appellant that
since, earlier counsel for appellant had not informed the appellant about the
decision passed by Additional District Magistrate cum Food Safety Tribunal,
therefore, the appeal could not be filed. It is further submitted that although,
the Food Safety Tribunal by order dated 27/02/2025 has rejected the
application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act, but the application for
condonation of delay should have been considered sympathetically by
adopting a liberal view.
4. Per contra, the appeal is vehemently opposed by counsel for State.
State has supported the reasoning assigned by the Tribunal.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
6. It is the case of appellant that since, his brother was suffering from
Cancer, therefore, he was busy in his treatment and as he was mentally
disturbed, therefore, he could not prefer an appeal within a period of
limitation. The appellant has filed some of medical documents of his brother.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7857
3 MSA-17-2025
According to which, brother of appellant was admitted in Cancer Hospital
and Research Institute, Gwalior on 16/04/2023 and in that document the
name of present appellant is mentioned. Thus, it is clear that on 16/04/2023,
appellant was accompanied by his brother. Thereafter, it appears that brother
of appellant was treated in Somani Hospital, Jaipur (Rajasthan) and
accordingly, counsel for appellant was directed to point out any document to
show that appellant was also accompanying by his brother and was staying in
Jaipur alongwith his brother.
7. Neither the tickets or any document have been filed to show that the
appellant had ever gone to Jaipur nor counsel for appellant could point out
anything from the prescriptions to show that appellant was attending his
brother as his attendant. Thus, it is clear that except for accompanying his
brother for two days in the month of April, 2023, appellant was not engaged
in the treatment of his brother. Therefore, the ground raised by counsel for
appellant that since, brother of appellant was suffering from Cancer and
appellant was busy in his treatment and was mentally disturbed is
misconceived and was rightly rejected by Trial Court.
8. So far as the contention of counsel for appellant that he was not
informed about the order dated 21/02/2023 passed by Additional District
Magistrate cum Adjudicating Officer, Morena by his counsel is concerned,
the same is misconceived. It is not out of place to mention her that no such
ground was raised by appellant in his application filed under Section 5 of
Limitation Act.
9. Furthermore, in the light of judgment passed by the Supreme Court
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7857
4 MSA-17-2025
in the case of R. Muthukrishnan Vs. The Registrar General of the High Court of
Judicature at Madras reported in AIR 2019 SC 849 , High Court has no
jurisdiction to adjudicate the question of professional misconduct. It lies
exclusively within the domain of Bar Council. Appellant has not approached
the Bar Council complaining the professional misconduct by his earlier
counsel, therefore, whether earlier counsel of appellant is guilty of
professional misconduct or not cannot be adjudicated by this Court.
Furthermore, it is clear from order dated 21/02/2023 passed by Additional
District Magistrate cum Adjudicating Officer that a copy of order dated
21/02/2023 was also forwarded to appellant. It is no where mentioned in the
application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act that the copy sent by
Additional District Magistrate cum Adjudicating Officer was never received
by appellant. Thus, the submission that appellant was not aware of order
dated 21/02/2023 passed by Additional District Magistrate cum Adjudicating
Officer is false.
10. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case,
this Court is of considered opinion that no case is made out warranting
interference.
11. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
(G. S. AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
PjS/-
