Madras High Court
K.Kanniyappan vs The Food Safety Officer on 10 January, 2022
1 CRL.O.P.(MD)NO.2872 OF 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 10.01.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2872 of 2021 and
CRL.M.P.(MD)Nos.1532 & 1533 of 2021
1. K.Kanniyappan,
S/o.V.K.Kanniyappan,
Business Manager,
Chakra Drugs (P) Ltd.,
No.160, 161, Tamil Nadu Food Articles
Commercial Complex,
Alanganallur Road, Chikkandar Savadi,
Madurai – 18.
2. S.L.Sethu Madhava,
S/o.Lakshmanan,
Director,
Chakra Drugs (P) Ltd.,
No.160, 161, Tamil Nadu Food Articles
Commercial Complex,
Alanganallur Road, Chikkandar Savadi,
Madurai – 18.
3. S.Vasumathi,
S/o.S.L.Sethu Madhava,
Director, Chakra Drugs (P) Ltd.,
No.160, 161, Tamil Nadu Food Articles
Commercial Complex,
Alanganallur Road, Chikkandar Savadi,
Madurai – 18.
4. Chakra Drugs (P) Ltd.,
No.160, 161, Tamil Nadu Food Articles
Commercial Complex,
Alanganallur Road, Chikkandar Savadi,
Madurai – 18. ... Petitioners / Accused Nos.1 to 4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
2 CRL.O.P.(MD)NO.2872 OF 2021
Vs.
The Food Safety Officer,
Madurai Corporation, (Code No.579),
O/o.The Designated Officer,
Food Safety and Drug
Administration Department, (Food Wing),
Viswanathapuram,
Madurai – 625 014. ... Respondent / Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Original petition is filed under Section
482 of Cr.P.C, to call for the records and quash the
proceedings in S.T.C.No.229 of 2020 on the file of the Judicial
Magistrate Court, Vadipatti, Madurai.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Rajaraman
For Respondent : Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar,
Additional Public Prosecutor.
***
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for
the respondent.
2. This criminal original petition has been filed to quash
the impugned proceedings in S.T.C.No.229 of 2020 on the file
of the Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3 CRL.O.P.(MD)NO.2872 OF 2021
3. It is a private complaint filed by the respondent for the
offences under Sections 51 and 59(i) of the Food Safety and
Standards Act, 2006. The case of the prosecution is that on
19.06.2019 at about 10.00 a.m., he inspected the premises
bearing Door Nos.160, 161, Tamil Nadu Food Articles
Commercial Complex, Alanganallur Road, Chikkandar Savadi,
Madurai – 18. Chakra Drugs (P) Ltd., was operating from the
said premises. They were dealing in “Whole Turmeric Finger”.
The sample was taken and it was also sent for analysis. The
same was found to be substandard and unsafe. Hence, the
impugned complaint was instituted.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
reiterated all the contentions set out in the memorandum of
grounds and called upon this Court to quash the impugned
proceedings.
5. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor
appearing for the respondent submitted that the premises in
question was unlicensed. But then, the prosecution has not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4 CRL.O.P.(MD)NO.2872 OF 2021
been instituted for the offence under Section 63 of the Act.
The complaint was only filed for the offences under Sections
51 and 59(i) of the Act.
6. It has been pointed out by the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners that the first petitioner
Kanniyappan has been nominated as the officer responsible
for the complaint with all the statutory requirements. The
learned counsel also drew my attention to the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1992 SC 1168
(R. Banerjee And Ors. Vs. H.D. Dubey And Ors.). He also
placed reliance of the decisions reported in 2011 (1) SCC 176
(Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd., V. Food Inspector and Ors.)
and 2011 (4) Crimes 634 (Mad) (R.Dharmarajan and Ors. V.
G.Jegatheesan) and an unreported Judgment dated
07.01.2015 in Crl.A.No.178 of 2003 (Madras Fertilizers Ltd.,
Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu). The ratio laid down in AIR 1992
SC 1168 is that when there has been a valid nominee
appointed by the company, it is only the nominee who can be
prosecuted. The question of prosecuting the directors will not
arise at all.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5 CRL.O.P.(MD)NO.2872 OF 2021
7. In the case on hand, the first petitioner Kanniyappan
has been nominated under Form-IX and in terms of Rule 2.5.1
of the Food Safety and Standards Rules, 2011. Therefore, it is
only the fourth accused company and the first accused
Kanniyappan who will have to face the prosecution. There are
no specific averments regarding petitioners 2 and 3. Applying
the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decision, the impugned
proceedings are quashed in so far as petitioners 2 and 3 are
concerned. Petitioners 1 and 4 will have to necessarily
establish their defence before the Court below in a regular
trial. All the contentions and the defences of petitioners 1 and
4 are left open.
8. This criminal original petition is partly allowed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
10.01.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
PMU
Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic,
a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but,
ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy,
shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6 CRL.O.P.(MD)NO.2872 OF 2021
G.R.SWAMINATHAN,J.
PMU
To:
1. The Judicial Magistrate,
Vadipatti, Madurai.
2. The Food Safety Officer,
Madurai Corporation, (Code No.579),
O/o.The Designated Officer,
Food Safety and Drug
Administration Department, (Food Wing),
Viswanathapuram, Madurai – 625 014.
3. The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2872 of 2021
10.01.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
