sg 4.apl683-19.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Application No.683 of 2019 1. Bunge India Pvt. Ltd., The Capital 601-C & 601-D, 6th Floor, C-70, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400051 2. Subramanian Natraj aged about 55 years, Occu.: Service, R/o. 301, Ambrsia Building, Powai, Mumbai- 400076 3. Sanjay Jain, aged about 51 years, Occu.: Service, R/o. 82, Varsova Venus CHS, MHADA Layout, Andheri (West), Mumbai - 400058 4. Samir Jain, aged about 47 years, Occu.: Service, R/o. The Capital 601-C & 601-D, 6th Floor, C-70, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400051 … Applicants versus The State of Maharashtra At the Instance of The Food Safety Officer, Food and Drug Administrative Office, Satpur, Tryambakeshwar Road, Nashik … Respondent __________________________________________________ 16 October 2025 SMITA JOHNSON GONSALVES Digitally signed by SMITA JOHNSON GONSALVES Date: 2025.10.17 00:21:22 +0530 sg 4.apl683-19.docx ---- Mr Anish Khandekar, for the applicants. Mr Arfan Sait, APP, for the respondent/ State. ---- Coram: R.N. Laddha, J. Date: 16 October 2025. P.C.: . Heard Mr Anish Khandekar, the learned Counsel for the applicants; and Mr Arfan Sait, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent/State. 2. The learned Counsel for the applicants tendered a copy of the impugned order, which is taken on record and marked "X" for identification. Upon perusal of the order dated 16 July 2013, passed in RC No.661 of 2013 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nashik (the impugned order), it is apparent that the order of issuance of process/impugned order is cryptic and unreasoned in a printed form. The learned Magistrate has affixed a rubber stamp engraved with the following words: “ORDER Issue process against accused No.1 to16 PU/s 59 of Food Safety and Standards Act 2006 C.J.M. Nasik". Page 2 of 4 __________________________________________________ 16 October 2025 sg 4.apl683-19.docx After affixing the aforesaid stamp, the Magistrate filled the blank space with the following words: "16 PU/s 59 of Food Safety and Standards Act 2006" which is not the appropriate manner in which judicial discretion should be exercised. The Magistrate needs to demonstrate such application of mind by giving reasons as to why the process is issued against the accused. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside. However, at the same time, it must be considered that if the Magistrate did not fulfil his duty, the respondent/original complainant should not be held responsible and should not have to endure any consequences due to the Magistrate's lapse. As a result, the impugned order dated 16 July 2013 of issuance of process in RC No.661 of 2013, pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nashik, is quashed and set aside and the learned Magistrate is directed to pass an order afresh on its own merits in accordance with the law, expeditiously, and as far as possible within three months from the date of receipt of the order. 3. The criminal application stands disposed of accordingly. It goes without saying that, if necessary, the applicants are free to seek legal recourse for their grievances if the occasion so arises. Page 3 of 4 __________________________________________________ 16 October 2025 sg 4.apl683-19.docx It is made clear that this Court has not examined the merits of the matter, and all contentions of the parties are left open. (R.N. Laddha, J.) __________________________________________________ 16 October 2025