The High Court · 2022

Petition under section 482 of cr.p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal petition,the High court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in c.c. No. 2g3 of 2023, the file of tne Learned 1st Metropolitan Magistrate (Municipar court), Manoranajn complex, H.yderabad, by dispensing with the personar attendance or tne Rccusea', titt disposal of these proceedings in this Hon'ble court, in the interest of justice. -on This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar Petition and upon irearing- the arguments of sri AADESH VARMA, Advocate for the petitioner and sRr. JtrHeruoEn VEERAMALLA, Additional Public prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1. The Court made the following: OROER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKAITAMJI CRIMINAL PETITION No.7490 OF 20 25 ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 5l B of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'the BNSS ) seeking quashment of proceedings in C.C.No.283 of 2023 on the file of the I Metropolitan Magistrate (Municipal Court), Manora rjan Complex, Nampally, Hyderabad.

2. lhave heard Mr. Aadesh Varma, learned :cunsel for the petitioners and Mr,Jithender Veeramalla, learned I'rlditional Public Prosecutor, reoresenting the respondent No.'l-State.

3.(a). The prosecution's case, in brief, is that, on 28 =ebruary 2022, at approximately 1:00 p.m., the complainant / the then Food Safety Officer, conducted a surprise inspection of the restaurant operated by Accused No. 2/the petitioner No.2. During t ris inspection, Accused No. 1/petitioner No.1, who was employed as the head chef, was present. The complainant examined various fo rd items being served at the establishment and, suspecting adulteration, collected a sample of 'Tandoori Chicken (full)' in accord lnce with the prescribed legal procedure. The collected sample was subsequently forwarded for analysis. ) 2 NTR, CRLP 7490 202s 3(b). According to the analyst's reporl dated 17 March 2022, lhe food sample was found to contain the food additive 'sunset yellow,' which is prohibited in such food preparations. Based on these findings, the complainant submitted a report to the Commissioner of Food Safety, Hyderabad, requesting sanction to initiate prosecution.

3.(c). Upon receipt of the requisite sanction, which was granted through G.O.Ms.No 43 issued by the Health, Medical & Family Welfare (G) Department on '1 5 May 2022, a formal complaint was filed before the competent Court on 15 July 2022.

4.(a). Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the food samples were collected from the restaurant on 28 February 2022, whereas the complaint was filed only on 15 July 2023, well beyond the prescribed limitation period of one year. The explanation offered for this delay is merely administrative, which is insufficient and unreasonable. lt was further submitted that, under Section 77 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as "the FSS Act"), a time limit is stipulated for the initiation of prosecution. This Court, in Criminal Petition Nos. 209 and 224 of 2020, among several others, has considered similar instances involving delay and has quashed the proceedings on that basis ''A*e&ii5:F.ttC!"-:qi"'.r7 / "{. .-17 ./ . t ,... I i I ! l I 3 NTR.J cRLP_7190,2025

4.(b). Additionally, counsel argued that the food analy;t's report fails to identify the specific regulation allegedly violattrd While the sample was analyzed under the Food Safety and Stirndards (Food Products Standards and Food Additives) Regulatiors, the report does not establtsh a defined standard applicable to "Tandoori Chicken." ln the absence of such a standard, the validity of the analysis and resultant prosecution is questionable. ln light of these submissions, learned counsel urgel the Court to quash the proceedings.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, howe rer, submitted that this Court has previously examined comparable factual scenarios in the aforementioned criminal petitions ard quashed the proceedings. However, he requested for considerinll the merits of the present case and to pass suitable orders.

6. I have perused the materials on record.

7. The dates on which the premises were inspectr:d, collection of sample, and the complaint filed are not in dispute. Th: record clearly reflects that the sanction for prosecution was g ranted by the Commissioner nearly one year after the date of sample collection.

8. Section 77 of the FSS Act, stipulates a limitaticn period of one year within which sanction for prosecution must be accorded. An .t ) i I I 4 NTR CRLP 7490 2025 ,,... ;lt exception exists whereby the Commissioner may extend this period; however, such extension must be accompanied by written reasons duly recorded.

9. A coordinate bench of this Court, in Criminal petition Nos. 209 and 224 of 2020, examined this statutory provision and held that in the absence of a reasoned written order from the Commissioner explaining the delay in granting sanction, the prosecution is rendered unsustainable. ln the present case, no such written reasons justifying the delay have been provided. 10. ln view of the foregoing, it is evident that the order granting prosecution falls short of the statutory requirements necessary to invoke the extended limitation under Section 17 of the FSS Act. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners' prayer for quashing the prosecution deserves to be allowed on the ground of limitation. 11. Accordingly, having regard to the lapse of the statutory period of limitation and the absence of legally sustainable justification for the delay in according sanction for prosecution, the proceedings in C.C. No. 283 of 2023, pending on the file of the I Metropolitan Magistrate (Municipal Court) at Manoranjan Complex, Hyderabad, against the petitioners, are hereby quashed. ,/. / I I I To, 5 NTR J CRLP 7490 2025

12. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed Pending miscellaneous applications, if an /, shall stand closed SNI K.BHAVANI SWAMY --AI;SITNHT REGISTRAR (.s- / SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// I The I Metropolitan Magistrate (Municipal) at Manoranlirn Complex' Nampally' ?# #?; the pubric prosecutor, High court for the ltate of Telangana' irL;il; 5nr neoEsu vARl\ilA Advocate toPUCl . Two CD CoPies Hvderabad [OUT] 3 4

2. PM/PSL \q-, i HIGH COURT DATED:2310612025 \ t, I I ORDER CRLP.No.7490 ot 2025 --,..-..,.-... J.- :r 14 [[T 20n /. ) i. a/ '{---. ----' ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION n.oR'ua k^F