Hyderabad High Court · 2025

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing he tr/emorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the argumer t , of sri Rajesh Batra representing sri A santosh chowdary, Advocate for the t etitioners and Smt. Madhavi Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respor lents The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.3437 of 2022 ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner_accused No.4 and 3 to quash the criminal proceedings against them in C C No 18 of 2021 on the file of the learned I tr/letropolitan Magistrate (t\rlunicipal Court) at Chidibazar, Hyderabad (for short 'learned the trial Court'), registered for the offences under Sections 3(1)(zz)(iii), 21(i) and 26(2)(0 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and Food Safety and Stands (Food Products and Food Additrve) Regulation, 201 1

02. Heard Sri Rajesh Batra, learned counsel, representing Sri Santhosh Alla, learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt.S.tVladhavi, learned Assistant public Prosecutor for the State-respondents 03 Brief facts of the case are that: On 20 O6.2Oi7 at about 01:00 P lVl , the complainant along with his office subordinate, visited the premises of the accused No.2, namely lM/s. Buddy Beverages Pvt Ltd., situated at H No.g-2_10g/7, 2 \.. *-a - I .l Sy.No 57A/'l G N.Reddy Godowns, Hastinir ruram, Sagar Road, L B. Nagar Circle, Hyderabad. The comp l tinant secured the presence of a mediator for the purpos€ of conducting inspection of the said premises. During I re course of inspection, the complainant introduced himself e s Food Safety Officer, East Zone, L B. Nagar Circle, Greirl :r Hyderabad l\/unicipal Corporation, Hyderabad, to the acctr: ed No 1, who was found to be the Store ln-charge of the said firm and engaged in its business operations. Upon irspection, the complainant found 4,224 bottles (353 cartors) of Aquafina Packaged Drinking Water kept for sale which is L sed for human consumption, along with other food articles, nant'rly various soft drinks of Pepsico Company Entertaining susp :ion regarding the said packaged drinking water, the complil rant collected samples and issued a Form-VA notice to the lccused No.1, informing him that the sample of Aquafina Par.t aged Drinking Water would be fonryarded to the State Fcrd Laboratory, Hyderabad, for analysis. Upon analysis, the )ublic Analyst opined that the said sample was unsafe. Henr't , the accused 7 -) are alleged to have committed the aforesaid offence and are Iable for prosecution

04. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the prosecution has failed to adhere to the mandatory procedure prescribed under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. lt is submitted that, in terms of Section 77 of the Act, the limitation period for launching prosecution is'one year from the date of commission of the alleged offence. However, in the present case, there has been an inordinate and unexplained delay in fiilng the complaint No reasons have been recorded by the Commissioner of Food Safety to justify the delay in initiating prosecution. lt is further contended that the analysis was conducted in a non-accredited laboratory, and therefore, the report of the Food Analyst is legally invalid and cannot be relied upon 05 With the above submissions, while praying for quashment of proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos 4 and 3, he relied upon a declsion in Dharampatsatyapat Limited through its Authorized representative, Shivakumar 4 \,.. ---1 \ - V.R. v. State of Kerala represented by P, and anotherl wherein at Paragraph Nos.'1 'l to 15 it was held rl rat "11 . Thus, the only reason mentioned to t delay is the procedural and administratt:. There is a complete absence of any explanet is the procedural delay. No mateial has br,r to in the order of the Commissioner to e nature of the administrationat delay oi t resport sible for such a delay. xplain the 1al delay. tn of what n referred xplain the re factors

12. The words 'procedural and administratit ,nal delay' are too vague and obscure terms to be regit explanation or as reasons for delay. T,t cannot signify a reason and are ot terminologies used to denote a title for the de, anything of relevance or significance. Wher, expressly requires reasons to be stated it mandates a precise reference to the cau; delay, which can be tested on the touc relevancy or sufficiency by a courl of law. ded as an rse lerms ly broad )y and not he statute writing, it ts for the \stone of

13. The terms procedural and administrative ,telay have been the subject of consideration by the ct trts under section 5 of the Limitation Act 1963. in Sl,r e of Uttar Pradesh v. Amar Nath Yadav K2014) 2 SC( 4221, the Supreme Couft had observed that it is time < inform all ' 2024 SCC onl-r.e Ker g3B 7 ) the Government bodies, their agencies and instru mentalities 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 monlhs/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 lnfrastructure Limited v. Union of lndia k2019) 2 SCC 4551 Supreme CourT observed that administrative difficulties cannot be a valid reason to condone delay. 14 Secllon 77 of the Act, which stipulates that prosecutions must be launched within a period of one year, has significance. lt entails the Food lnspectors to act swiftly and without delay. lt ls a/so a measure of fair and reasonable procedure prescribed under law before depriving the liberty of an individual. When the statute prescrlbes a period of limitation and carues out an exception from the main provision, the conditions required to fall within the exception must be strictly adhered to. The principle that penal slalufes are to be interpreted strictly also has to be followed. Therefore, as a measure of depriving the liberly 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 6 '\l \ the courl to review whether the stated r >asons for extending the time for prosecution are t>gaily and factually justifiable or not

15. ln the instant case, the letter from the Officer was issued after a delay of 1B montl delay of five months from 21 .03.2015 to 1 the office of the Commlssioner has a/s,r explained. The aforenoted delay ls sub.;, beyond the period stipulated for taking cogr i reason for such a long delay has not been i all. ln the absence of any reason for such a the sanction becomes legally invalid. ln circumstances, this Court is of the vie t Commissioner had failed to record any reasc name to extend the period stipulated unde, of the Act for sanctioning the prosecution." )esignated ; A fufther )8 2015 at not been zntial and 'ance. The rdicated at cng delay, he above that the t worth its ;ection 77

06. On the other hand, learned lr ;slstant public Prosecutor for the State-respondents contendec that the public Analyst report is very clear that the sample is u r safe and that it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings agains the petitioners at this juncture and the matter has to be decided after conducting trial by the concerned Court and the: in vrew of the serious allegations levelled against the : =titioners, the 1 petitioners are liable to be prosecuted for the alleged offences and prayed this Court to dismiss the petition

07. ln view of above submissions, it is relevant to extract Section 77 of the Food Safety And Standards Act, which reads as under '77. Time lrmi[ for prosecutrcns - Notwitfistanding anything contained in this Act, no courl shall take cognzance of an offence under this Act after the exptry of the period of one year from the date of commlsslon of an offence.Provided that the Commissioner of Food Safety may for reasons to be recorded in writing, approve prosecutrcn within an extended period of up to three years. " 08 Section 77 of the Act, which stipulates that the prosecutions must be launched within a period of one year, has significance. lt entails the Food lnspectors to act swiftly and without delay lt 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 \..rr 4,..'**l - interpreted strictly also has to be followed ' herefore, as a measure of depriving the liberty of an indi'r jual when the statute provides certain conditions to be satisf e C, there cannot be any scope for a liberal interpretation The equirement for giving reasons in writing enables the court tc 'eview whether the stated reasons for extending the time for >rosecutron are legally and factually justifiable or not 09 ln the present case, the sample r,r rs collected on

20.06.2017 and the report of the Food Analyst was issued on

04.07.2017 Accordingly, the limitation for launching prosecution expired on 0407 2018 Though Sr ction 77 of the Food Safety and Standards Act empowers the - cmmissioner of Food Safety, for reasons to be recorded in wril ng, to approve prosecution within an extended perrod of up to iree years, the complaint in the present case was filed only on '7 02 2021 The Government Order dated 28 12.2020 merely ;tates that the reason for approving prosecution beyond )ne year was "administrative," which cannot be considerec a legally valid ju stification 9 10 As seen from the cognizance order of the learned l\4agistrate, it was mentioned that "ln view of the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rn W P Civil No.3 of 2020 dated 23032020 extending period of limitation for filing complaint This complaint is filed period of limitation.". lt is to be noted that in Sagufa Ahmed and others v. Upper Assam Polywood Products Private Limited and others2 the Hon'ble Supreme Court at Paragraph Nos '16 & 17 held that "16. To get over their failure to file an appeal on or before 18 03.2020. the appellants rely upon the order of this Courl dated 23.03.2020 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No 3 of 2020 lt reads as follows: "1. This Court has taken Suo Motu cognizance of the situation arising out of the challenge faced by the country on account of Covidl9 Virus and resultant difficulties that may be faced by litigants across lhe country in filing their petitions / applications / suits / appeals/all other proceedings within the period of limitation prescribed under the general law of limitation or under Specra/ Laws (both Central and/or State). 2. To obviate such difficulties and to ensure that lawyers/litigants do not have to come physically to file such proceedrngs in respective CourtslTribunals across the country including this Cour7, it is hereby ordered that ' lZOZll z Supreme Court Cascs 317 l0 -i ' *--r1 \l - a period of limitation in all such D1 irrespective of the limitation prescribed general law or Special Laws whether conclctn, shall stand extended w e f. 15th March 2A2( order/s to be passed by this Courl tt proceedings. ,ceecJings, rnder the ble or not till further presenI

3. We are exercising this power under Artic r 142 read ,r1 declare with Article 141 of the Constitution of lndia ,t that this order is a binding order witlttrt the, , Afticle 141 on all CourlslTribunals and autltrt r 4. This order may be brought to the notice , 't all High Courts for being communicatect to all ;,lrcrdinate Courts[Tribunals within their respective jurtsr:,t lion 5. /ssue notice to all the Registrars Gerteral :, r the High eantng of /es. Courts, returnable in four weeks "

17. But we do not think that the appellartts refuge under the above order What was e( the above order of this Court was only il),) limitation" and not the period upto which c1e,l condoned in exercise of discretion confer r statute. The above order passed by tltts ( intended to benefit vigilant litigants who wr:rr due lo the pandemic and the lockdown. frot proceedings within the period of limitation pnt. general or special law. lt is needless to point t law of limitation finds its root in two latin max r which is Vigilantibus Non Dormientibus Jura j which means that the law will assisl only i/ro ; can take ended by perod of 'y can be d by the ourt was trevented initrating c:ribed by rt that the ts, <tne of rbveniunt ' who are 1l vigilant about their rights and not those who sleep over them."

11. ln light of the above authoritative pronouncement, it is clear that the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in W.p (Civil) No.3 of 2020 extended only the "period of limitation" in respect of proceedings which were required to be initiated on or after 15.03 2020, but it did not enlarge the time for condonation of delay where the limitation period had already expired prior to the said date ln the present case, the period of limitation for launching prosecution expired much before 15.03.2020, and hence, the complainant cannot derive any benefit from the Covid-19 extension order Consequently, the reliance placed by the learned [Vlagistrate on the said order to hold that the complaint was filed within limitation is legally untenable

12. ln State of lJttar Pradesh v. Amar Nath Yadaf the Hon'ble 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 ' (zql(r) z scc .lzz - 12 \-r - '\ bonafide effort, there is no need to accept ilr,, g5s31 explanation that the fire was kept pending for severar nr rnths/years due to considerable degree of procedural red_taprs r.r in the process. The Government departments are under a s,1 ecial obligation to ensure that they perform their duty wt h diligence and commitment. Simirarry, in the decision srmp,l tx rnfrastructure Limited v. lJnion of tndia4 the Hon,ble Supreme Court observed that administrative difficulties c:l lnot be a valid reason to condone delay. ln the instant case the delay in filing the complaint is clearly beyond the statutory 1,enod prescribed for taking cognizance, and no legally sustairrble reasons for such prolonged delay have been re: trded by the Commissioner, as mandated under Section 71 f theAct. ln the absence of such reasons, the sanction ac: trded becomes legally invalid Hence, this Court is of the cons clered view that the Commissioner has failed to comply w t r the statutory requirement of recording reasons for extendirr I the limitation ln that view of the matter, the prosecution laun: ted against the o lzor s; z scc +ss petitioners-accused Nos.4 and 3 amounts to abuse of process of law and the same is liable to be quashed. 13 Accordingly, this Criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.4 and 3 in CC.No.'l 8 of 2021 on the file of the learned I Metropolitan Magistrate (tVunicipal Court) at Chidibazar, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed As a sequel, lnterlocutory Applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/- K. ;HAVANI SWAMY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR G SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The I Metropolitan ltrlagistrate Court (Municipal Court), Chidibazar, Hyderabad

2. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (OUT)

3. One CC to Sri A Santosh Chowdary, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies ADK/SA HIGH COURT DATED:2410912025 I ORDER CRLP.No.3437 of 2022 / ;,.,i, ...- ,.) i I 5 l]Er 106 \: 1rf r, :l rl ALLOWING THE CRLP