1 2026:CGHC:19088-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 560 of 2026 Mahesh Chouksey S/o Ramdayal Chouksey Aged About 62 Years R/o Tarbahar Bilaspur, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh Appellant(s) Versus The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Dr. R.K. Shukla, Food Safety Officer, Food And Herbal Administration, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant(s) : Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Senior Advocate along with Ms. Preeti Yadav, Advocate For Resp/State : Mrs. Anusha Naik, Dy. GA Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Bibhu Datta Guru, J 25/04/2026 1. The present criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 76 (1) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (hereafter ‘the Act’), assailing the judgment and order dated 08/02/2019 passed by the learned RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2026.04.25 18:39:27 +0530 2 Sessions Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 278/2017, whereby the appeal preferred by the appellant against the order dated 22/05/2012 passed by the Additional District Magistrate and Adjudicating Officer, Bilaspur in Case No. 01/2012 has been dismissed and the order of imposition of penalty of ₹1,00,000/- under Section 52 of the Act for violation of Section 26(2) of the Act has been affirmed. 2. (a) The facts, in brief, as emerging from the record, are that the appellant is the proprietor of a मिठाई एवं नकीन manufacturing unit under the name and style of “Mahesh Sweets” situated at Tarbahar Chowk, Bilaspur. On 15/10/2011 at about 4:00 PM, the Food Safety Officer, Food and Drugs Administration, Bilaspur, inspected the premises of the appellant and found a packed bag of 50 kilograms of “Ararot” stored for use in preparation of food articles. After giving due notice in Form VA and obtaining acknowledgment, a sample of the said food article was taken in the presence of witnesses upon payment of its price. The sample was divided into four parts, duly sealed, labeled, and packed in accordance with the prescribed procedure, and was sent for analysis to the State Food Testing Laboratory, Raipur. (b) As per the report of the Food Analyst dated 31/10/2011, the sample, though conforming to standards, was found to be “Maize Starch” and not “Ararot” as declared, and was therefore categorized as “misbranded” under the provisions of the Act. On the basis of the said report, after obtaining necessary sanction, a complaint was instituted against the appellant for violation of Section 26(2) of the Act, punishable under Section 52 thereof. 3 (c) The Adjudicating Officer, after affording opportunity of hearing to the appellant, held him guilty of the said violation and imposed a penalty of ₹1,00,000/- by order dated 22/05/2012. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court, which came to be dismissed by the impugned judgment, affirming the findings recorded by the Adjudicating Officer. 3. (i) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment is contrary to law and facts on record. It is contended that the appellant is not engaged in the business of selling “Ararot” or maize starch, but only runs a food establishment where items like cutlets are prepared and sold, and the sample in question was taken from raw material purchased from the market. In such circumstances, the appellant, being neither the manufacturer nor supplier, cannot be held liable for alleged misbranding of the raw material, particularly when no action has been taken against the manufacturer. It is further submitted that no sample of the final food product, i.e., cutlet, was taken, and therefore fastening liability for a raw ingredient is unsustainable. It is also urged that as per the Food Analyst’s report, the sample was “within norms” and only termed as “misbranded” under Section 3(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, which merely indicates misdescription (ararot instead of maize starch) without any deficiency in quality or safety, and thus does not warrant. (b) It is also contended that the sample was not analyzed by a competent and duly notified laboratory, as the Central Food Laboratory, Ghaziabad was the notified laboratory having jurisdiction, whereas the sample was analyzed by the State Food Testing Laboratory, Raipur, which lacked authority; therefore, the 4 report being without jurisdiction vitiates the entire proceedings. He would argue that the alleged incident took place on 15.10.2011 and as per the provisions of the Food Safety and Standards (Laboratory and Sample Analysis) Regulations, 2011 came into force w.e.f. 1.8.2011 and as such according to the said Regulations the sample is required to be sent to the Central Food Laboratory, Ghaziabad. However, in the case at hand, the sample has been sent to the Laboratory situated at Raipur and hence the entire action initiated agains the appellant is bad in law. On these grounds, it is prayed that the impugned judgment be set aside, the appellant be acquitted, and the amount of penalty be refunded. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State while supporting the impugned judgment would oppose the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that after due appreciation of the report, the conviction has been held upon the appellant as such no interference is warranted. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. The primary contention raised on behalf of the appellant relates to the competency of the laboratory at Raipur and the validity of the Food Analyst’s report. In this regard, it is to be noted that though under the Food Safety and Standards (Laboratory and Sample Analysis) Regulations, 2011 certain Central Food Laboratories have been notified, Regulation 2.1.1 also provides that samples may be analyzed by Food Analysts of laboratories notified by the Food Authority having jurisdiction over the area. Regulation 2.1 speaks about 5 notified laboratories for import. For the sake of convenience, the provision of Regulation 2.1.1 is quoted below : 2.1 Notified Laboratories for import 2.1.1 The sample of any imported article will be sent by the Authorised Officer for analysis to the Food Analyst of any of the laboratories notified by the Food Authority under Section 43(1) of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. xxx xxx xxx 7. From the material on record, it is evident that the Food Analyst who conducted the analysis at the State Food Testing Laboratory, Raipur was duly appointed for the State of Chhattisgarh. In such circumstances, it cannot be held that the laboratory lacked jurisdiction or that the report is vitiated on this ground. 8. So far as the contention regarding misbranding is concerned, the Food Analyst’s report clearly indicates that the sample, though conforming to standards, was not “Ararot” as declared but “Maize Starch”, and was therefore misbranded within the meaning of Section 3(2)(A)(ii) of the Act. The fact that the product was within norms does not absolve the appellant of liability arising from misbranding, which is a distinct violation under the Act. The further contention that the appellant is not the manufacturer and, therefore, not liable, also does not merit acceptance. The material on record establishes that the sample was taken from the premises of the appellant where the said article was stored for use in preparation of food items for sale. The statutory obligation under Section 26(2) of the Act casts responsibility upon the person dealing with 6 food articles to ensure compliance with the provisions of the Act, and such liability is not confined to the manufacturer alone. 9. The procedural aspects of sampling, sealing, and dispatch of the sample have not been shown to be vitiated. The appellant has also not disputed the taking of sample from his premises. In view of the above, the findings recorded in the impugned judgment do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. 10. On a cumulative consideration of the entire material available on record, this Court finds that the findings recorded in the impugned judgment are based on proper appreciation of evidence and correct application of law. No procedural irregularity, jurisdictional error, or perversity in reasoning has been demonstrated so as to warrant interference. The conclusions arrived at are neither arbitrary nor contrary to the settled principles governing the field, and the view taken is a plausible and legally sustainable one. In such circumstances, no case is made out for interference in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. 11. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no merit in the appeal. The impugned judgment is well-reasoned and does not call for interference. 12. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of substance is hereby dismissed. The order of imposition of penalty of ₹1,00,000/- is affirmed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Rahul/Gowri