1 CGHC010170492021 2026:CGHC:31775 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2855 of 2021 M/s. Jyoti Industries, Dhamdha Road, Village - Chikhali, District - Durg (Chhattisgarh) 491001 (A Proprietary Concern Registered Under The Food Safety And Standard Act, 2006 And The Ministry Of Micro, Small And Medium Enterprises (MSME) Of Government Of India) Through Proprietor - Gopal Agrawal, S/o. Shri Kamal Kumar Agrawal, Aged About - 35 Years, R/o.- Ward No. 36, Khursipar, Bhilai, District - Durg (Chhattisgarh) ... Petitioner versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Food Safety Officer, Food And Drugs Administration Office, Jindal Road, Bhagwanpur, Raigarh, District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) 496001. 2 - The Designated Officer, Raigarh, Food And Drugs Administration Office, Jindal Road, Bhagwanpur, Raigarh, District - Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) 496001. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. D.K.Gwalre, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Amit Buxy, Dy. Govt. Advocate ASHOK SAHU Digitally signed by ASHOK SAHU Date: 2026.07.27 13:30:42 +0530 2 (Single Bench) Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 24.07.2026 1. The petitioner herein seeks quashment of complaint dated 19.01.2021 (Annexure P-2), Revenue Case No.11/B-121/2020-21 pending before the Additional District Magistrate-cum-Adjudicating Officer, District Raigarh for offence under Sections 26(1), 26(2)(ii), 27(1) & 27(3)(c) of the Food Safety & Standards Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 2006”), which are punishable under Sections 50 & 52 of the Act of 2006. 2. The aforesaid complaint has been lodged on the following factual background :- (i) The petitioner is a proprietorship firm engaged in the business of preparing fruit juices in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 2006 and the Rules & Regulations made thereunder and has a valid licence in the name of M/s. Jyoti Industries. (ii) On 03.03.2020, the Food Safety Officer, Raigarh is said to have inspected the shop/firm namely M/s. Lovely App & Fruit run by Pyari Nayak at village Budiya, Tehsil- Tamnar, District Raigarh and found confectionary items stored therein. The Food Safety Officer obtained/purchased some samples of “Unibic Cookies” and 3 “packed P.K.Litchi Fuit Jusice” from the said shop of Pyari Nayak and after completing formalities, prepared a panchanama and sent the sample of packed P.K. Litchi Fuit Juice to Food Analyst, State Food Testing Laboratory at Raipur and in the test report the Food Analyst has opined that the tested sample is “within norms” and it is not adulterated but it is found to be “misbranded” under Section 3(1)(zf)C(i) of the Act of 2006 and the Regulations of the Food Safety & Standards (Packaging And Labelling) Regulations, 2011 (herein after referred to as “the Regulations, 2011”). Accordingly, the Food Safety Officer sought sanction for prosecution of petitioner firm before the Designated Officer. (iii) The Designated Officer accepted the recommendation made by the Food Safety Officer and exercising power under Section 36(3)(e) of the Act of 2006 granted sanction on 07.01.2021 and, thereafter, the complaint was filed on 19.01.2021 against the two firms namely M/s. Lovely App & Fruit though its proprietor Pyari Nayak and against the petitioner M/s. Jyoti Industries and thereafter cognizance has been taken on said complaint on 19.01.2021 and summon has been issued to the petitioner. 3. Now, the petitioner has questioned the complaint as well as order of taking cognizance and entire proceedings mainly on the ground that though the food item was not found adulterated but it was found to 4 be misbranded, but which provisions or rules & regulations have been violated has not been mentioned in the complaint and order granting sanction, which lacks clarity and, as such, the complaint must contain the particulars sufficient to give the accused notice of the matter with which he is being tried and, as such, for want of clarity, the complaint and order of taking cognizance deserves to be quashed. 4. Return has been filed by the State stating inter alia that clause 6 of regulation 2.2.2 of the Regulations, 2011 has been violated, which is filed as Annexure R-1. No rejoinder has been filed. 5. Mr. D.K.Gwalre, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the object of prosecution is to enable an accused to have a clear idea of what he is being tried for and of the essential accusation that he has to meet. The charge must contain the particulars sufficient to give the accused notice of the matter with which he is being prosecuted. He would further submit that the complaint, sanction order or order taking cognizance does not disclose as to which regulation framed under the Act of 2006 has been infringed so as to make the petitioner liable for the penalty under Section 52 of the Act of 2006. He would rely upon the decision of Patna High Court in the matter of Ratneshwar Mishra & Others v. State of Bihar1 and he referred to paragraph 11. 1 (1989) PLJR 74 5 6. Mr. Amit Buxy, learned State counsel, would submit that clause 6 of regulation 2.2.2 of the Regulations, 2011 has been violated, which is clear from the report of Food Analyst, in which the petitioner’s incomplete postal address has been given, which is required to be given under clause 6 of the regulation 2.2.2 and, as such, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 8. As stated herein above, the petitioner has been charged for violation of Sections 26(1), 26(2)(ii), 27(1) & 27(3)(c) of the Act of 2006, which are punishable under Sections 50 & 52 of the Act of 2006. 9. The Food Analyst report clearly indicates that the sample is “within norms” but “misbranded” vide Section 3(1)(zf)c(i). Section 3(1) (zf)C(i) states as under : “Section 3(1)(zf)(A) & (B)…...xxx…...xxx…...xxx….. (C) if the article contained in the package- (i) contains any artificial flavouring, colouring or chemical preservative and the package is without a declaratory label stating that fact or is not labelled in accordance with the requirements of this Act or regulations made thereunder or is in contravention thereof.” 6 10. The definition of “misbranded” would show that when an article is deemed to be misbranded then it is required to be shown as to how it is misbranded and under which category of definition it can be said as misbranded. Merely saying that food article is misbranded is not sufficient and whoever alleges that a food article is misbranded he is required to show further that how the article is misbranded. 11. Return filed by the State Government would show that the petitioner’s incomplete postal address has been given, which is required under clause 6 of regulation 2.2.2 of the Regulations, 2011, which states as under : “6. Name and complete address of the manufacturer :- (i) The name and complete address of the manufacturer and the manufacturing unit if these are located at different places and in case the manufacturer is not the packer or bottler, the name and complete address of the packing or bottling unit as the case may be shall be declared on every package of food; (ii) Where an article of food is manufactured or packed or bottled by a person or a company under the written authority of some other manufacturer or company, under his or its brand name, the label shall carry the name and complete address of the manufacturing or packing or bottling unit as the case may be, and also the name and complete address of the manufacturer or the company, for and on whose behalf it is manufactured or packed or bottled; (iii) Where an article of food is imported into India, the package of food shall also carry the name and complete address of the importer in India. 7 Provided further that where any food article manufactured outside India is packed or bottled in India, the package containing such food article shall also bear on the label, the name of the country of origin of the food article and the name and complete address of the importer and the premises of packing or bottling in India.” 12. The object of prosecution is to enable an accused to have a clear idea of what he is being tried for and of the essential accusation that he has to meet. The complaint must contain the particulars sufficient to give the accused notice of the matter with which he is being prosecuted. The accused is entitled to know with certainty and accuracy, the exact nature of the charge against him, and unless he has such knowledge, his defence will be prejudiced and the accused will be prejudiced, resulting in a failure of justice. 13. For a criminal prosecution, the party must know the definite charge against him. He must be made to understand that he violated or contravened certain provisions of the Ace and the rule. On vague allegation, which is not definite, no prosecution can be launched. The order for violation of which if anybody is to be prosecuted, it must; be specific, certain and clear so as to view a reasonable, precise and adequate guidance otherwise it will be very difficult for an innocent man to avoid prosecution. 14. Reverting to the facts of the instant case, neither the impugned complaint nor sanction order or order taking cognizance indicates as 8 to which regulation framed under the Act of 2006 has been infringed by the petitioner herein so as to make the petitioner liable for penalty under Section 52 of the Act of 2006. Neither the complaint nor sanction order or order taking cognizance has disclosed the violation of any regulation framed under the Act of 2006. The adjudicating officer, after application of his judicial mind in its order has not recorded a prima facie view that the petitioner has violated any regulation framed under the Act of 2006 rendering him liable for prosecution. 15. The Patna High Court, in the matter of Ratneshwar Mishra (supra), has clearly held that on vague allegation, no prosecution can be launched and observed in paragraph No.11 as under : “11. For a criminal prosecution, the party must know the definite charge against him. He must be made to understand that he violated or contravened certain provisions of the Ace and the rule. On vague allegation, which is not definite, no prosecution can be launched. The order for violation of which if anybody is to be prosecuted, it must; be specific, certain and clear so as to view a reasonable, precise and adequate guidance otherwise it will be very difficult for an innocent man to avoid prosecution.” 16. The Supreme Court, in the matter of Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi 2 , has laid down the scope of Sections 202 and 204 of the old Code while laying down the guidelines and 2 (1976) 3 SCC 736 9 grounds on which the complaint can be quashed and observed as under : “Thus, it may be safely held that in the following cases an order of the magistrate issuing process against the accused can be quashed or set aside : (1) where the allegations made in the complaint or the statements of the witnesses recorded in support of the same taken at their face value make out absolutely no case against the accused or the complaint does not disclose the essential ingredients of an offence which is alleged against the accused; 2) where the allegations made in the complaint are patently absurd and inherently improbable so that no prudent person can ever reach a conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused; (3) where the discretion exercised by the Magistrate in issuing process is capricious and arbitrary having been based either on no evidence or on materials which are wholly irrelevant or inadmissible; and (4) where the complaint suffers from fundamental legal defects, such as, want of sanction, or absence of a complaint by legally competent authority and the like.” 17. As such, it is quite clear that violation of the Act, Rules & Regulations or infraction of provision of any order or regulation, the prosecution is required to establish before launching the prosecution against the petitioner, which the prosecution has miserably failed to establish and merely quoting certain provisions, which is not at all attracted in absence of the provision which is sought to be violated, the petitioner cannot be prosecuted for the penal provisions 10 contained in the Act of 2006. More particularly, the sample has been found “within norms” and merely non-mentioning of the postal address of the petitioner, launching of an order sanctioning prosecution as well as the complaint so filed and order taking cognizance deserves to be and hereby quashed, as the allegations made in the complaint and the documents annexed therein taken at their face value do not make out a case against the present petitioner rather the complaint does not disclose any essential ingredients of an offence which the petitioner is charged. The complaint so filed in the Court of Adjudicating Officer, Raigarh, is hereby dismissed. 18. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Ashok