Final Order 27

Order Details: COPY OF JUDGMENT
Pdf Text: FSAT no. 09//2022
Nikhil Asrani & Ors Vs State (Through FSO FSAT)
	Page no. 1 of 11
IN THE COURT OF SH. PITAMBER DUTT :
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE-CUM-PRESIDING OFFICER,
FOOD SAFETY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI.
FSAT NO. 09/2022
CNR No. DLND01-005692-2022
1. Sh. Nikhil Asrani
S/o Sh. Suresh Kumar & Co. (Impex) Pvt. Ltd.
A-17, Sonu Tower, IInd Floor,
Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Commercial Complex,
Delhi – 110009
R/o B-3/303, 19 Rajpur Road,
Civil Lines, Delhi – 110054.
2. M/s Suresh Kumar & Co. (Impex) Pvt. Ltd.
A-17, Sonu Tower, IInd Floor,
Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Commercial Complex,
Delhi – 110009
Alternate Address
M/s Suresh Kumar & Co. (Impex) Pvt. Ltd.
Khasra No. 1092, First Floor,
Pole No. 215,
Bhalswa Village, Delhi – 110033.
3. Sh. Rajiv Juneja
S/o Sh. Rajunder Juneja
M/s Kundan Lal Juneja & Co.
902, Chowk Kutab Road,
Sadar Bazar, Delhi – 110006
R/o 1, Vijay Block, Laxmi Nagar,
Delhi – 110092.
4. Mr. Rajinder Juneja
S/o Sh. Kundan Lal Juneja & Co.
902, Chowk Kutab Road,
-- 1 of 11 --
FSAT no. 09//2022
Nikhil Asrani & Ors Vs State (Through FSO FSAT)
	Page no. 2 of 11
Sadar Bazar, Delhi – 110006
R/o 1, Vijay Block, Laxmi Nagar,
Delhi – 110092.
5. Sh. Kapil Juneja S/o Rajiv Juneja
M/s Kundan Lal Juneja & Co.
902 Chowk Kutab Road,
Sadar Bazar, Delhi – 110006
R/o 1, Vijay Block, Laxmi Nagar,
Delhi – 110092.
6. M/s Kundan Lal Juneja & Co.
902 Chowk Kutab Road,
Sadar Bazar, Delhi – 110006
R/o 1, Vijay Block, Laxmi Nagar,
Delhi – 110092. .........Appellants
Versus
State Through FSO
Food Safety Officer, Dept. of Food Safety,
Government of NCT of Delhi
8th Floor, Bhawan, Connaught Place,
New Delhi – 1
2. Sh. Bal Mukund
Food Safety Officer,
Department of Food Safety
Government of NCT of Delhi,
8th Floor, Mayur Bhawan,
Connaught Place,
New Delhi – 110001. ............Respondent
Date of Institution : 05.07.2022
Arguments heard on : 06.04.2026
Date of Judgment : 20.04.2026
Appearances:-
-- 2 of 11 --
FSAT no. 09//2022
Nikhil Asrani & Ors Vs State (Through FSO FSAT)
	Page no. 3 of 11
Sh. Kapil Sharma, Sh. A.K. Shrivastav and Sh. Jishnu Bakshi, Ld. Counsels for
the appellants.
Sh. Birender Singh Dagar, Ld. Chief Public Prosecutor for the State / FSO.
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this order, I shall decide the appeal filed by the appellants
against impugned order dated 13.06.2022, passed by the Adjudication
Officer / ADM (Central), Delhi under Rule 3.1.2 of the Food Safety &
Standards Rules, 2011. The brief facts necessitated in filing of the present
appeal are given as under:-
2. The appellants have averred that on 19.05.2017, Sh. Bal Mukund,
Food Safety Officer (FSO), took sample of “Skippy Creamy Peanut
Butter” from Sh. Rajiv Juneja S/o Sh. Rajender Juneja, M/s Kundan Lal
Juneja & Co., 902, Chowk Qutab Road, Sadar Bazar, Delhi – 110006, for
analysis under the Food Safety & Standards Act, 2006 and after analysis,
declared the said sample to be misbranded for violation of Regulation no.
2.2.2.2. (f) (i) and 2.2.2.6 (i) of the Food Safety and Standards (Packaging
and Labeling) Regulation 2011, by the Food Analyst, Government Food
Laboratory, Delhi, vide Food Analyst Report no. FSS/562/2017 dated
05.06.2017. Consequently, a complaint was filed by the FSO against the
appellant and others, before the Ld. Adjudicating Officer, ADM
(Central), Delhi and after considering the reply and rejoinder as well as
the submissions made by both the parties, the A.O. / ADM, vide
impugned order dated 13.06.2022, imposed a consolidated penalty of
Rs.20,000/- on appellant no. 3 to 6 and consolidated penalty of
Rs.50,000/- on appellants no. 1 and 2. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned
order dated 13.06.2022, the present appeal has been filed for adjudication.
-- 3 of 11 --
FSAT no. 09//2022
Nikhil Asrani & Ors Vs State (Through FSO FSAT)
	Page no. 4 of 11
3. Notice of the appeal was sent to the Food Safety Officer, record of
the Adjudicating Officer was also called for.
4. Sh. A.K. Shrivastav, Ld. Counsel for the appellants has contended
that the impugned order has been passed by the A.O. / ADM in a
mechanical manner, without appreciating and distinguishing the
submissions / objections and the documents so relied by the appellants in
their reply / objections. He further contended that the sample of Skippy
Creamy Peanut Butter was found to be conforming to the prescribed
standards and provisions of the Food Safety and Standards (Packaging
and Labeling) Regulations, 2011 and the report of Food Analyst is totally
false, biased and not as per the provisions of the Packaging and Labeling
Regulations, 2011. He further contended that the Adjudicating Officer
has failed to appreciate that the peanut butter is a single ingredient food
product and other ingredients such as food additives are required to be
added as per technological requirements / necessities to enhance the taste,
texture and to keep it homogenized. He further contended that the Skippy
Creamy Peanut Butter was neither a mixture nor a combination and was
not manufactured, imported, distributed or sold as a mixture or
combination. He further contended that the pictorial representation of
peanut in peanut butter was of serving suggestion for consumer
information and as per 2nd Proviso to regulation 2.2.2.2 (f) the percentage
disclosure of such pictorial ingredient is not required. He further
contended that the respondent / FSO has failed to bring on record any
document to show that the Food Analyst Laboratory, Delhi was
recognized by the Food Authority and accredited by NABL at the
relevant time. He further contended that merely because of minor labeling
defects on the impugned sample commodity, the appellants could not
have gained or would have caused loss to the consumers. He prayed that
-- 4 of 11 --
FSAT no. 09//2022
Nikhil Asrani & Ors Vs State (Through FSO FSAT)
	Page no. 5 of 11
appeal may be allowed and impugned order dated 13.06.2022 may be set
aside.
5. Sh. Birender Singh Dagar, Ld. Chief Public Prosecutor for the
State / FSO has contended that the impugned order has been passed by
the FSO after considering the reply filed by the appellants and material
available on record, as per law. He further contended that the sample
taken was opined to be of ‘Misbranded’ by the Food Analyst vide his
report no. FSS/562/2017 dated 05.06.2017 because percentage of
ingredients used was not declared, although same was emphasized as
present on the label through pictures, in violation of Regulation no.
2.2.2.2 (f) (i) and 2.2.2.6 (i) of the Food Safety & Standards (Packaging
& Labeling) Regulation, 2011. He further contended that copy of Food
Analyst Report was sent to FBO but none appeared before the Designated
Officer, Central District, to file an appeal against the report of the Food
Analyst. He prayed that appeal may be dismissed.
6. I have heard Ld. counsel for the appellants, Ld. counsel for the
respondents, perused the appeal, impugned order as well as record. A
perusal of the above shows that Food Safety Officer conducted a raid on
13.06.2022 and sample of Skippy Creamy Peanut Butter was taken,
which was found of Misbranded after examination, therefore, a complaint
was submitted by the FSO against the appellant for violation of
provisions of Section 23 (1), Section 26 (1) & 26 (2) (ii), Section 27 (1)
and Section 27 (2) (c) Read with Section 3 (1) (zf) (C) (i) of the Food
Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and violated Regulation no. 2.2.2.2 (f) (i)
and 2.2.2.6 (i) of the Food Safety and Standards (Packaging & Labeling)
Regulations, 2011, punishable under Section 52 of the Food Safety and
Standards Act, 2006.
-- 5 of 11 --
FSAT no. 09//2022
Nikhil Asrani & Ors Vs State (Through FSO FSAT)
	Page no. 6 of 11
7. Pursuant to the said complaint, notice was sent to the appellants,
who submitted their detailed reply.
8. The Adjudicating Officer thereafter, passed the impugned order
dated 13.06.2022, holding the appellants guilty for commission of
offences and imposed penalty of fine as mentioned in para (i) of the
order.
9. The appellants have claimed that impugned order dated 13.06.2022
has been passed without considering the various grounds taken by them
in their reply to complaint of Food Safety Officer.
10. A perusal of record shows that appellants challenged the complaint
filed by Food Safety Officer on various grounds, which they have taken
in their reply. As per the appellants, the sample of Skippy Creamy Peanut
Butter was found to be conforming to the prescribed standards and
provisions of the Food Safety and Standards (Packaging and Labelling)
Regulations, 2011. They further pleaded that the Skippy Creamy Peanut
Butter was neither a mixture nor a combination and was not
manufactured, imported, distributed or sold as a mixture or combination
and the pictorial representation of peanut in peanut butter was of serving
suggestion for consumer information and as per 2nd Proviso to regulation
2.2.2.2 (f) the percentage disclosure of such pictorial ingredient is not
required. They also claimed that the respondent / FSO has failed to bring
on record any document to show that the Food Analyst Laboratory, Delhi
was recognized by the Food Authority and accredited by NABL at the
relevant time.
11. The appellants had thus taken various pleas against the
maintainability of the complaint, which goes to the root of the matter.
-- 6 of 11 --
FSAT no. 09//2022
Nikhil Asrani & Ors Vs State (Through FSO FSAT)
	Page no. 7 of 11
However, surprisingly the Adjudicating Officer has not dealt with any of
such pleas raised by the appellants in their reply and has passed the
impugned order without assigning any reason as to why and on what
basis, he discarded the plea taken by the appellants in their reply.
12. The right to be heard is one of the fundamental principles of
natural justice, which is to be followed by all the Administrative
Authorities and Quasi Judicial Authorities. The basic fundamental
principle of natural justice is that the person against whom an order is
passed must know as to why and on what basis the said order has been
passed.
13. The order must be a speaking one, giving reasons
for reaching to the conclusion and must not be cryptic in
nature.
14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
“M/s Kranti Asso. Pvt.
Ltd. & Anr. Vs Masood Ahmed Khan & Ors.”, Civil Appeal, arising out
of SLP (Civil) no. 20428 of 2007, date of decision 08.09.2010, after
analyzing various judgments on necessity of giving reason by a body or
Authority in support of his judgment, summarized various pleas and
observed in para 51, as under:-
51. Summarizing the above
discussion, this Court holds:
a. In India the judicial trend
has always been to record
reasons, even in administrative
decisions, if such decisions
affect anyone prejudicially.
b. A quasi-judicial authority
must record reasons in support
of its conclusions.
-- 7 of 11 --
FSAT no. 09//2022
Nikhil Asrani & Ors Vs State (Through FSO FSAT)
	Page no. 8 of 11
c. Insistence on recording of
reasons is meant to serve the
wider principle of justice that
justice must not only be done it
must also appear to be done as
well.
d. Recording of reasons also
operates as a valid restraint on
any possible arbitrary exercise
of judicial and quasi-judicial or
even administrative power.
e. Reasons reassure that
discretion has been exercised
by the decision maker on
relevant grounds and by
disregarding
	extraneous
considerations.
f. Reasons have virtually
become as indispensable a
component of a decision
making process as observing
principles of natural justice by
judicial, quasi-judicial and
even by administrative bodies.
g. Reasons facilitate the
process of judicial review by
superior Courts.
h. The ongoing judicial trend
in all countries committed to
rule of law and constitutional
governance is in favour of
reasoned decisions based on
relevant facts. This is virtually
the life blood of judicial
decision making justifying the
principle that reason is the soul
of justice.
i. Judicial or even quasi-
judicial opinions these days
can be as different as the
judges and authorities who
deliver them. All these
decisions serve one common
purpose which is to
-- 8 of 11 --
FSAT no. 09//2022
Nikhil Asrani & Ors Vs State (Through FSO FSAT)
	Page no. 9 of 11
demonstrate by reason that the
relevant factors have been
objectively considered. This is
important for sustaining the
litigants' faith in the justice
delivery system.
j. Insistence on reason is
a requirement for both judicial
accountability
	and
transparency.
k. If a Judge or a quasi-judicial
authority is not candid enough
about his/her decision making
process then it is impossible to
know whether the person
deciding is faithful to the
doctrine of precedent or to
principles of incrementalism.
l. Reasons in support of
decisions must be cogent, clear
and succinct. A pretence of
reasons or `rubber-stamp
reasons' is not to be equated
with a valid decision making
process.
m. It cannot be doubted that
transparency is the sine qua
non of restraint on abuse of
judicial powers. Transparency
in decision making not only
makes the judges and decision
makers less prone to errors but
also makes them subject to
broader scrutiny. (See David
Shapiro in Defence of Judicial
Candor (1987) 100 Harward
Law Review 731-737).
n. Since the requirement to
record reasons emanates from
the broad doctrine of fairness
in decision making, the said
requirement is now virtually a
component of human rights
and was considered part of
Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See
-- 9 of 11 --
FSAT no. 09//2022
Nikhil Asrani & Ors Vs State (Through FSO FSAT)
	Page no. 10 of 11
(1994) 19 EHRR 553, at 562
para 29 and Anya vs.
University of Oxford, 2001
EWCA Civ 405, wherein the
Court referred to Article 6 of
European Convention of
Human Rights which requires,
"adequate and intelligent
reasons must be given for
judicial decisions".
o. In all common law
jurisdictions judgments play a
vital role in setting up
precedents for the future.
Therefore, for development of
law, requirement of giving
reasons for the decision is of
the essence and is virtually a
part of "Due Process".
15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in case titled
Jaspal Singh
Jolly Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi, reported as 125 (2005) DLT 592,
has held that:-
“Noting the decision of the
Supreme Court as Erusia
Equipments & Chemical Ltd.
Vs State of West Bengal,
(1975) 1 SCC 70: AIR 1975
SC 266 (at P. 269); 106 (2003)
DLT 573, Mekaster Trading
Corporation Vs Union of India;
and (1990) 4 SCC 594, S.N.
Mukherjee Vs Union of India,
I had held that the aforesaid
decision established the legal
proposition that orders which
are subject to judicial review
must be in compliance with the
principle of natural justice,
namely (a) proper hearing, (b)
decision by an unbiased mind;
(c) taking into consideration all
the relevant factors and
excluding the irrelevant
factors; and (d) reasons to be
recorded.
-- 10 of 11 --
FSAT no. 09//2022
Nikhil Asrani & Ors Vs State (Through FSO FSAT)
	Page no. 11 of 11
Needless to state, reasons
enable the superior Court to
effectively
	exercise
supervisory
	jurisdiction.
Additionally, when reasons are
stated, the persons affected
knows the mind against him. A
decision may be right, but not
sound. Such a decision leaves a
grievance in the mind of the
person affected that he was not
told why the decision was
taken.”
16. The adjudicating officer while passing the order was thus required
to assign reason that on what basis, he discarded the pleas taken by the
appellant. However, the adjudicating officer has failed to assign any
reason for discarding the plea taken by the appellant in their reply and has
passed the impugned order without giving any reason, therefore, said
order is not sustainable in law.
17. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the appeal filed by
the appellants against the impugned order dated 13.06.2022, passed by
the Adjudicating Officer / ADM (Central), is allowed. The impugned
order dated 13.06.2022 is set aside. Matter is remanded back to the
Adjudicating Officer / ADM (Central) with the directions to hear the
parties afresh and pass a reasoned order after dealing with all the pleas
taken by the appellants in their reply and supplementary reply.
18. The record of the respondent be send back along with copy of this
order. Appeal file be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the open Court
Today i.e. on 20.04.2026
(PITAMBER DUTT)
Principal District & Sessions Judge,
New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts
New Delhi.
-- 11 of 11 --