In a significant ruling, the Chhattisgarh High Court has set aside a penalty of ₹30,000 imposed on a Bilaspur-based sweet shop owner for allegedly selling sub-standard Kaju Barfi. The court found that the adjudicating authority failed to provide a “reasonable opportunity of hearing” to the petitioner, Kailash Rajak, thereby violating mandatory legal procedures.
The case dates back to October 2014, when a Food Safety Officer collected a sample of Kaju Barfi from Rajak’s shop. The sample was sent to the State Food Testing Laboratory in Raipur, which declared it “unsafe” and “sub-standard.” Following this, a complaint was filed under the Food Safety and Standards (FSS) Act, 2006.
The Additional District Magistrate, acting as the Adjudicating Officer, imposed a penalty of ₹30,000 on Rajak in December 2016 for violating Section 26(2) of the FSS Act. Rajak challenged this order through a writ petition, arguing that he was not given a fair chance to defend himself.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey carefully examined the proceedings. The court noted that while a notice was issued and a reply was filed, the Adjudicating Officer moved directly to a final order without conducting a proper inquiry.
Crucially, the Food Safety Officer was never examined as a witness, denying Rajak the opportunity to cross-examine him on the sampling process. The court emphasized that merely relying on lab reports and a written reply from the accused was insufficient to establish guilt.
Referring to Section 68 of the FSS Act, the bench highlighted that the Adjudicating Officer must conduct an inquiry and provide a “reasonable opportunity” for the accused to make a representation. This includes the right to know the charges, cross-examine witnesses, and present a defense.
The court found that these procedural safeguards were completely bypassed. It also expressed doubts about whether the sampling of the Kaju Barfi was conducted in accordance with the FSS Act and related regulations, raising questions about the integrity of the evidence itself.
Allowing the petition, the bench quashed the penalty order, stating that imposing a fine without an inquiry and without affording a reasonable opportunity to defend was “unsustainable in law.” The ruling reinforces the principle that procedural fairness is not just a formality but a fundamental requirement of justice, even in regulatory and administrative proceedings.
Citation : 2023 Local Law (CG) 800
Case Details : WPCR No. 37 of 2017, Kailash Rajak Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.
Counsels: For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocate. For Respondents/Defendant: Madhunisha Singh, Deputy Advocate General
Acts/Rules/Orders: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 345; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 346; Constitution Of India – Article 311 (2); Food Safety And Standards Act, 2006 – Section 26 (2), Food Safety And Standards Act, 2006 – Section 26(2), Food Safety And Standards Act, 2006 – Section 45, Food Safety And Standards Act, 2006 – Section 49, Food Safety And Standards Act, 2006 – Section 51, Food Safety And Standards Act, 2006 – Section 68, Food Safety And Standards Act, 2006 – Section 68 (2); Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) – Section 193; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) – Section 228