MANIK HIRU JHANGIANI Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) Various provisions of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (for short, 'the FSSA') were brought into force on different dates. The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short, 'the PFA') was repealed with effect from 5th August 2011, as provided in sub-section (1) of Sec. 97 of the FSSA.

(3.) The appellant was, at the relevant time, a Director of M/s. Bharti Retail Limited, (for short, 'Bharti'), a company that is engaged in the business of operating retail stores under the name of 'Easy Day' having its outlets all over the country. A Food Inspector appointed under the PFA visited a shop owned by Bharti in Indore and purchased certain biscuit packets from the shop. The visit was made on 29th November 2010. On the next day, a panchnama was drawn, and the samples were sent to the State Food Laboratory, Bhopal, for analysis and testing. The report of the Public Analyst was received on 4th January 2011. On 4th August 2011, a notification was issued under subsection (1) of Sec. 97 of the FSSA notifying 5th August 2011 as the date on which the PFA shall stand repealed. In Section 97, and in particular in sub-section (1), there is a provision that notwithstanding the repeal of PFA, any penalty, forfeiture, or punishment incurred in respect of any offences committed under the PFA shall not be affected by the repeal. Moreover, there is a sunset clause in the form of sub-section (4) of Section 97 which provides for a sunset period of three years from 5th August 2011 for taking cognizance of the offences under the PFA. On 11th August 2011, sanction was granted to the Food Inspector to prosecute the Directors of Bharti under the provisions of the PFA. The Food Inspector filed a charge sheet on 12th August 2011, and on the same day, cognizance of the offence was taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate, and a bailable warrant was issued against the appellant. The appellant filed a petition under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'CrPC') for challenging the order of cognizance. By the impugned judgment, the High Court dismissed the petition under Sec. 482 of CrPC. The High Court noted that the offence alleged against the appellant was of misbranding which had taken place prior to the repeal of the PFA. Hence, within a period of three years from the date of repeal, the learned Magistrate was empowered to take cognizance in view of sub-section (4) of Sec. 97 of FSSA. Being aggrieved by the said decision of the High Court, the present appeal has been preferred.