State of U.P v. Samir Chandra), under Section

Applicant :- Samir Chandra Dwadash Shreni Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Saurabh Srivastava,Somya Dwadash Shreni Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

1. Heard Ms. Vishakha Pandey (AOR A/V 0240/2019) holding brief of Sri Saurabh Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Indrajeet Singh Yadav, learned AGA for the State.

2. This Court on 16.04.2025 proceeded to pass the following orders.- "1. The contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that a perusal of the complaint which has been annexed at page 8 of the supplementary affidavit purports to be under Section 7 (1) and 2 (i-a) (m) of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. According to the learned counsel for the applicant that summoning order has been issued on 23.09.2024. The contention is that the prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 stood repealed with effect from 29.07.2010 and in view of the provisions contained under section 97 of the Food Safety and Standards Act schedule-II, thus, no cognizance or summons could have been made pursuant to an act which stood repealed. This Court on 10.04.2025 accorded time to learned AGA to seek instructions.

2. Sri Indrajeet Yadav, learned AGA seeks time to obtain instructions.

3. Put up this case on 23.04.2025 as fresh along with Application U/s 528 BNSS No. 9725 of 2025 with a clear stipulation that no further time will be granted."

3. Today, Sri Indrajeet Singh Yadav, learned AGA has forwarded a copy of the instructions dated 26.04.2025 of the Assistant Commissioner, Food- II Designated Officer of the Food Safety and Drug Administration, U.P., Prayagraj according to Sri Yadav, the instructions are self saying and he does not propose to file any further affidavit. Learned counsel for the applicant also submits that the application be decided on the basis of the documents violable on record.

4. This application u/s 528 of BNSS has been preferred for quashing the entire proceedings of under Section 7 (1) and 2 (1-a) (m) of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and all its consequential proceedings in Criminal case no. 1696 of 2011 (State of U.P V. Samir Chandra), under Section 7 (1) and 2 (1-a) (m) of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 Police Station Civil Lines, District- Prayagraj.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant herein is the owner of 'Shahenshah' Restaurant which is producing and selling fast food meals and in the year 2011 the opposite party no. 2, the Food Inspector inspected the establishments and found the Besan Ke Laddoo hereinafter referred to as the product is not in conformity with standards of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that since 2011, the matter was not proceeded with and on 23.09.2024, the applicant has been sought to be summoned under Section 7(1) and 2(i-a) (m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration, 1954. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the Food Safety and Standards Act was enforced on 29.07.2010 and by virtue of Section 97 of the Act, the Act being Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 as earmarked in the second schedule under Section 97 stood repealed and rescinded. Submission is that on the date of summoning of the applicants on 23.09.2024 the applicant could not have been summoned in pursuance of the provisions of the Food Adulteration Act, 1954. She further submits that the summoning order itself is a cryptic order without application of mind and further in view of the provision contained under sub-section (4) of Section 97, no cognizance would have been taken under the repealed act or order after a period of three years. Reliance has also been placed upon the judgment in the case of M/S. JM Laboratories vs State of Andhra Pradesh 2025 INSC 127 & M/S Pepsi Co India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. vs State Of U.P.: Writ Petition No. 8254 (MB) of 2010 decided on 08.09.2010.

6. Learned AGA, on the other hand, submits that by virtue of Section 97 of the Food Safety and Standards Act with effect from 05.08.2011 the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 stood repealed and, thus, there was no illegality in taking cognizance as only summoning order has been passed subsequently. He further does not dispute the fact that the summoning order is cyclostyle and the same has probably been passed without due application of mind according to him, the summoning order be set aside, matter be remitted back to the court below to pass a fresh order.

7. I have heard the submissions made across the bar and perused the record carefully.

8. Apparently, the summoning order dated 23.09.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1696 of 2011 is a cyclostyle order without there being anything on record to show that there has been any application of mind. Further the Court summoning is a serious issue, thus, application of mind is a pre-requisite and a pre- condition so as to reflect that there happen to be deliberation and consideration of the nature of the complaint that too on prima facie basis. Since the said aspect is thoroughly lacking and the same is not in conformity and in consonance with the mandate of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of JM Laboratories (supra), para 9 whereof is quoted hereinunder.- "9. In the present case also, no reasons even for the namesake have been assigned by the learned Magistrate. The summoning order is totally a non- speaking one. We therefore find that in light of the view taken by us in criminal appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2345 of 2024 titled "INOX Air Products Limited Now Known as INOX Air Products Private Limited and Another v. The State of Andhra Pradesh", and the legal position as has been laid down by this Court in a catena of judgments including in the cases of Pepsi Foods Ltd. and another Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and others, Sunil Bharti Mittal Vs. Central Central Bureau of Investigation, Mehmood U Rehman Vs. Khazir Mohammad Tunda and others and Krishna Lal Chawla and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, the present appeal deserves to be allowed."

9. Accordingly, the summoning order dated 23.09.2024 is set aside, matter is remitted back to the court below to pass a fresh summoning order strictly in accordance with law taking into account each and every aspect of matter as noticed above.

10. With the aforesaid observation, the application stands disposed of.

11. Instructions filed today is taken on record and marked as Appendix 'A'. Order Date :- 28.4.2025 Rajesh

Applicant :- Samir Chandra Dwadash Shreni Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Saurabh Srivastava,Somya Dwadash Shreni Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

1. Heard Ms. Vishakha Pandey (AOR A/V 0240/2019) holding brief of Sri Saurabh Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Indrajeet Singh Yadav, learned AGA for the State.

2. This Court on 16.04.2025 proceeded to pass the following orders.- "1. The contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that a perusal of the complaint which has been annexed at page 8 of the supplementary affidavit purports to be under Section 7 (1) and 2 (i-a) (m) of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. According to the learned counsel for the applicant that summoning order has been issued on 23.09.2024. The contention is that the prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 stood repealed with effect from 29.07.2010 and in view of the provisions contained under section 97 of the Food Safety and Standards Act schedule-II, thus, no cognizance or summons could have been made pursuant to an act which stood repealed. This Court on 10.04.2025 accorded time to learned AGA to seek instructions.

2. Sri Indrajeet Yadav, learned AGA seeks time to obtain instructions.

3. Put up this case on 23.04.2025 as fresh along with Application U/s 528 BNSS No. 9725 of 2025 with a clear stipulation that no further time will be granted."

3. Today, Sri Indrajeet Singh Yadav, learned AGA has forwarded a copy of the instructions dated 26.04.2025 of the Assistant Commissioner, Food- II Designated Officer of the Food Safety and Drug Administration, U.P., Prayagraj according to Sri Yadav, the instructions are self saying and he does not propose to file any further affidavit. Learned counsel for the applicant also submits that the application be decided on the basis of the documents violable on record.

4. This application u/s 528 of BNSS has been preferred for quashing the entire proceedings of under Section 7 (1) and 2 (1-a) (m) of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and all its consequential proceedings in Criminal case no. 1696 of 2011 (State of U.P V. Samir Chandra), under Section 7 (1) and 2 (1-a) (m) of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 Police Station Civil Lines, District- Prayagraj.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant herein is the owner of 'Shahenshah' Restaurant which is producing and selling fast food meals and in the year 2011 the opposite party no. 2, the Food Inspector inspected the establishments and found the Besan Ke Laddoo hereinafter referred to as the product is not in conformity with standards of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that since 2011, the matter was not proceeded with and on 23.09.2024, the applicant has been sought to be summoned under Section 7(1) and 2(i-a) (m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration, 1954. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the Food Safety and Standards Act was enforced on 29.07.2010 and by virtue of Section 97 of the Act, the Act being Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 as earmarked in the second schedule under Section 97 stood repealed and rescinded. Submission is that on the date of summoning of the applicants on 23.09.2024 the applicant could not have been summoned in pursuance of the provisions of the Food Adulteration Act, 1954. She further submits that the summoning order itself is a cryptic order without application of mind and further in view of the provision contained under sub-section (4) of Section 97, no cognizance would have been taken under the repealed act or order after a period of three years. Reliance has also been placed upon the judgment in the case of M/S. JM Laboratories vs State of Andhra Pradesh 2025 INSC 127 & M/S Pepsi Co India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. vs State Of U.P.: Writ Petition No. 8254 (MB) of 2010 decided on 08.09.2010.

6. Learned AGA, on the other hand, submits that by virtue of Section 97 of the Food Safety and Standards Act with effect from 05.08.2011 the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 stood repealed and, thus, there was no illegality in taking cognizance as only summoning order has been passed subsequently. He further does not dispute the fact that the summoning order is cyclostyle and the same has probably been passed without due application of mind according to him, the summoning order be set aside, matter be remitted back to the court below to pass a fresh order.

7. I have heard the submissions made across the bar and perused the record carefully.

8. Apparently, the summoning order dated 23.09.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1696 of 2011 is a cyclostyle order without there being anything on record to show that there has been any application of mind. Further the Court summoning is a serious issue, thus, application of mind is a pre-requisite and a pre- condition so as to reflect that there happen to be deliberation and consideration of the nature of the complaint that too on prima facie basis. Since the said aspect is thoroughly lacking and the same is not in conformity and in consonance with the mandate of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of JM Laboratories (supra), para 9 whereof is quoted hereinunder.- "9. In the present case also, no reasons even for the namesake have been assigned by the learned Magistrate. The summoning order is totally a non- speaking one. We therefore find that in light of the view taken by us in criminal appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2345 of 2024 titled "INOX Air Products Limited Now Known as INOX Air Products Private Limited and Another v. The State of Andhra Pradesh", and the legal position as has been laid down by this Court in a catena of judgments including in the cases of Pepsi Foods Ltd. and another Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and others, Sunil Bharti Mittal Vs. Central Central Bureau of Investigation, Mehmood U Rehman Vs. Khazir Mohammad Tunda and others and Krishna Lal Chawla and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, the present appeal deserves to be allowed."

9. Accordingly, the summoning order dated 23.09.2024 is set aside, matter is remitted back to the court below to pass a fresh summoning order strictly in accordance with law taking into account each and every aspect of matter as noticed above.

10. With the aforesaid observation, the application stands disposed of.

11. Instructions filed today is taken on record and marked as Appendix 'A'. Order Date :- 28.4.2025 Rajesh