MADAN LAL AGRAWAL Vs. STATE OF C.G.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling agrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dtd. 26/11/2021 passed by the Food Safety Appellate Tribunal)/Sessions Judge, Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, in Criminal Appeal No.67 of 2020, the appellants herein/manufacturers have preferred this appeal under Sec. 71(6) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (for brevity "the Act, 2006") questioning the impugned order by which their (appellants herein) appeal against the order dtd. 24/2/2020 passed by the Adjudicating Officer has been dismissed while affirming the order of the Adjudicating Officer finding no merit.

(2.) The aforesaid challenge has been made on the following backdrop:-

(3.) Mr. J. N. Nande, learned counsel for the appellants, would submit that the Adjudicating Officer as well as Food Safety Appeal Tribunal both have concurrently erred in dismissing the appeal of the appellants. He would further submit that the learned Food Safety Appellate Tribunal has legally erred in dismissing the appeal of the appellants and affirming the order of the Adjudicating Officer as no reasonable opportunity of hearing was afforded to the appellants herein and no inquiry was held before imposing the fine upon the present appellants which is violative of Sec. 68(2) of the Act, 2006. He would further submit that the case was fixed by the Adjudicating Officer for hearing on 22/7/2019 vide order dtd. 15/7/2019, however, the case was not taken up for hearing on 22/7/2019 and all of sudden the case was taken up for hearing on 5/8/2019, without informing/issuing notice to the present appellant, and statement of Sarita Patel, Food Safety Officer was recorded in absence of the present appellants and thereafter, impugned order dtd. 24/2/2020 has been passed and, as such, the appellants have been deprived of reasonable opportunity of hearing and also to defend themselves and thereby the impugned order is vulnerable and consequently, order of the Adjudicating Officer as well as the order of the Food Safety Appellate Tribunal both deserve to be set aside. He would further submit that relevant documents have not exhibited and examined by the Adjudicating Officer and in very casual manner Adjudicating Officer has passed the impugned order which the Food Safety Appellate Tribunal also did not notice and straightway dismissed the appeal of the present appellants which is liable to be set aside by granting this criminal appeal.