1 / 4 2025:CGHC:4917 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1380 of 2021 1 - Hitesh Kumar Dewata S/o Late J. R. Dewata Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Midmida Post Jhalmala Tehsil Pussore District Raigarh, Chhattsigarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ashwani Kumar Chandwani S/o Ashok Kumar Chandwani Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Pandripani Post- Kodatarai Kirodimal Nagar District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 3 - M/s Bajrang Beverages Village Pandripani District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Appellants versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Food Safety Officer Food And Cosmetic District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Appellants : Mr. Krishna Tandon, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Karan Kumar Bharani, Panel Lawyer (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Judgment on Board 28.01.2025 1. The instant appeal under Section 71(6) of the Food and Safety Standards Act, 2006 has been filed against the order dated 23.09.2021 passed by the learned Session Judge, Raigarh Appellate Tribunal (Food Safety Appellate Tribunal) in Criminal Appeal no. 07/2020 arising out of order dated 15.11.2019 passed by the Additional District Magistrate/Adjudicating Officer, Raigarh in Case No. 02/B-121/2016-17. 2 / 4 2. The case in nutshell is that the present appellant no. 1 is the manager of a firm in the name of M/s Bajrang Bevarages situated at Village- Pandripani District- Raigarh (C.G.) whereby the appellant no. 3 is the proprietor of the firm. The firm was manufacturer and storers of water bottles in the name of Acqa Ash Blue Packaged drinking water. On the date of incident that is on 11.03.2016, the Food and Safety Officer, on the suspicion of adulteration in the material, raided the firm premises of the appellants. The officer bought 4 liters of water bottles from the appellants firm, after which as per the rules prescribed under the Food & Safety Standards Act, 2006, four slots were sealed infront of witnesses present inside the premises of the storage, signature were taken from the witnesses as well, one sample was kept under security and the other sample was sent for testing to laboratory, Raipur (C.G.). When the sample which were sent for testing, the result was mentioned by the authorities that, the sample of bottles were not up to the mark as per the norms described under Rule 2.3.3 of the Food and Safety Standards (Packaging & Labelling), 2011 which states that the label which is to be affixed into the outer layer of the water bottles must be written with 04 mm upon the label of the package, thereby the appellants was prosecuted under the Act, after which the appellants submitted their reply before the Learned Tribunal, Raigarh. 3. After examining all the material evidence placed on record, witnesses and their affidavits, the Learned Tribunal fined the appellant no. 2 for the sum of rs. 3,00,000/- (Three Lack Rupees), stating that the samples of 3 / 4 the appellants were treated as ‘misbranded’ as per Section 52 of the Act. Hence this appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the impugned order is contrary to the principles of law. The first contention raised by the counsel for the appellant is that the concerned Collector has not provided opportunity of hearing and has not conducted the examination of the witnesses. He also raised his second contention regarding the packaging of the water bottle. In this respect he stated that as per the norms of Food and Safety Standards (Packaging & Labelling), 2011 which states that the label which is to be affixed into the outer layer of the water bottles must be written with 04mm , upon the label of the package. However, when the raid was conducted and the label was measured on the water bottle, it was found to be 2.3.3mm that is because of the fact that the label has been affixed by using hot air pressure which ultimately led to the shrinking of the label and it was subsequently measured as 2.3.3 mm but it has to be borne in mind that when the label will be measured before using hot air pressure it would measure to 04mm only which is up to the standard level prescribed by the Food and Safety standards. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence with utmost circumspection. 7. The first and foremost contention so raised by the learned counsel for the appellants was that the opportunity of hearing and cross-examination of 4 / 4 witness has not been given to the appellants. However, on perusal of the record this court has found that the concerned Collector has issued show cause notice to the appellant and after giving opportunity of hearing and giving sufficient time to adduce the evidences to the appellants decided the case. From the records it is clear that Ms. Sudha Choudhary(witness) has been examined. Moreover not only once but four time opportunity has been given to the appellant in order to produce the evidence. Therefore this court is of the considered opinion that so far as the first contention of the counsel for the appellants is concerned it is totally unworthy. 8. The second and the last contention raised by the appellant was that the label which was affixed into the outer layer of the water bottles was 2.3.3 instead of 4mm which was due to the fact that the label was sticked to the bottle using a hot air pressure which consequently lead to the shrinking of the label. In the considered opinion of this court the label when measured was 2.3.3 mm which is not the standard level set by the concerned authority. And while labeling it should be kept in mind that the label should be of 4mm even after using hot air pressure. Therefore, it is a case of misbranding, learned concerned Collector/Authority has rightly held that the samples were misbranded. 9. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merits deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE alfiza