Final Order 1

Order Details: Copy of Order - 1
Pdf Text: [ 1 of 6 ] C.C. NO.1159/MISC/2026
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE (F.C.)
46TH COURT, MAZGAON, MUMBAI
C.C. NO.1159/MISC/2026
CNR NO.MHMM120070492026
C.R. NO.521/2026 OF SHIVAJI NAGAR POLICE STATION)
Anand Kumar Laltaprasad Chaorasiya ...Applicant
Vs.
The State.
(Through – Shivaji Nagar Police Station) … Respondent
ORDER BELOW APPLICATION OF REMOVAL OF SEAL
This is an application filed for the removal of seal of the
premises i.e. M/s Jai Maharashtra Pan Bdi Shop, Shivaji Nagar, Opp.
Plot No.18, Near U. P. Dairy, Govandi, Mumbai-43 (here-in-after referred
as ‘said premises’ for sake of brevity).
02. The facts necessary for deciding the application in short are
as follows:
It is the contention of the applicant that, the FSO had
visited said premises and at the time of visit, he was present there. The
said premises came to be sealed as the contraband articles alleged to
have been found stored in the said premises. He has further contended
that, the premises is the only source of his income. He further
undertakes to abide by all the terms and conditions imposed by the
Court while de-sealing the premises. Hence, it is prayed that, the said
premises may be de-sealed.
03. On receiving the application, say of the respondents was
called. Food Safety Officer, M. S. Gunjal has filed say (Exh.5) and
submitted that, on 16.06.2026 the visit was conducted at M/s Jai
Maharashtra Pan Bdi Shop, Shivaji Nagar, Opp. Plot No.18, Near U. P.
-- 1 of 6 --
[ 2 of 6 ] C.C. NO.1159/MISC/2026
Dairy, Govandi, Mumbai-43. At the time of visit the applicant was found
in possession of prohibited food articles Pan Masala, Scented Tobacco
and Gutkha. Therefore, the premises came to be sealed. As the applicant
was found in possession of the shop, he is Food Business Operator
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the FBO’). He has submitted various
provisions by which said premises was sealed. He submitted that, the
FBO was having knowledge of prohibition, stored Pan Masala, Scented
Tobacco and Gutkha for sale. If the said premises is de-sealed and
would given in possession of the applicant, the same may again use for
similar purpose. The said premises is required as evidence for further
investigation. Therefore, he objected for de-sealing the premises.
Learned APP. has scribed her say on the application itself and the I.O.
has filed say (Exh.4). They both have raised objection to de-seal the
premises.
04. Perused the application, say, and verified copies of
documents submitted by the applicant. Heard the learned Counsel for
the applicant. It appears that, in view of the Notification
FSSA/Notification/411/2025/7 dated 16.07.2025 of the State
Government, the product like Gutkha, Scented Tobacco and Pan Masala
are banned for transporting, stocking and selling. The FBO in
contravention of said Notification, found stocking the prohibited
articles. Therefore, the offence was registered. Section 3 (zi) of the FSS
Act, defines ‘premises’ which includes shop, stall, hotel etc.
05. It is imperative to mention that, the statutory provisions set
out in the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and the rules framed
thereunder empower the Designated Officer to lock and seal the
premises, where the contraband is kept. Rule 2.1.3(4) of the Food
Safety and Standard Rules, 2011 authorises the FSO to seal the
-- 2 of 6 --
[ 3 of 6 ] C.C. NO.1159/MISC/2026
premises for the purpose of investigation, after taking a sample of such
adulterant or food for analysis. However, to invoke these powers, the
FSO has to record his reasons in writing. He has to come to a conclusion
that, it is not possible to comply with section 38(1)(c) of the FSS Act or
proviso to Section 38(1) of the FSS Act. The Rules also prescribe non-
availability of the FBO as one of the reasons to seal the premises.
06 In the present matter, the reply filed by FSO does not show
that, any order in writing before sealing the premises is passed.
Moreover, the object of sealing the premises is restricted for the purpose
of investigation. Considering the fact that Scented Tobacco, Pan Masala
and Gutkha are seized in this matter, the Investigating Officer or FSO
are supposed to dispose the contraband articles as per law.
07. It is to be noted that in the present case, the prohibited
food articles already seized by the FSO. The samples of the same have
been already taken. There is nothing on record to suggest non-
compliance of Sec.38(1)(c) of the FSS Act or Proviso to section 38(1).
Moreover, the FBO was available to the FSO at the time of visit. Thus,
the compliance of Section 38(1)(c) of the FSS Act could have been done
easily. The premises was sealed on 16.06.2026. More than a month has
been elapsed from sealing of the said premises. Hence, sufficient time
has been granted to the investigating machinery for investigation. Thus,
there is no reason to seal the premises for uncertain period. If the
applicant shows his interest over the premises, he is entitled for relief
claimed.
08. In this respect, the applicant filed on record affidavit in
support of his application (Exh.3), Verified copy of his Aadhar Card,
-- 3 of 6 --
[ 4 of 6 ] C.C. NO.1159/MISC/2026
Copy of Intimation Receipt issued under Shops and Establishment Act
and Copy of FIR.
09. After persual of Intimation Receipt issued under Shops and
Establishment Act, it shows that, name of the establishment as claimed
by the applicant and sealed by the FSO. It is issued in the name of the
applicant. In addition to this, admittedly, the applicant was found in the
premises at the time of raid. Thus, he was in possession of the premises
while sealing of the premises. The applicant has also stated on affidavit
that, he is in possession of the sealed premises. The FSO is not disputing
the identity of the sealed premises. Considering all these aspects and
the documents filed on record, the applicant has shown his interest over
the sealed premies. Therefore, the said premises can be de-sealed
without prejudice to pending civil litiation, if any.
10. In the case of
Nagoorkani v/s. The Commissioner and
Others, WP(MD)Nos.30871 and 30873 of 2023, decided on 02nd
January, 2024, the Hon’ble Madras High Court observed that, the action
of the officials was justified in locking and sealing the petitioner’s
premises and godown, but the continued closure may not really serve
any purpose. Although there might be a temporary basis for closing off
property, it cannot be a permanent solution. The sealing had an impact
on the shop owners’ right to livelihood and acknowledged their
fundamental freedom to conduct business under Article 19(1)(g) of the
Constitution of India and therefore, de-sealing is necessary due to the
disproportionate impact on their rights.
11. Thus, the measure of locking and sealing has a drastic
consequence on the applicant’s livelihood. It is not as if the FBO was
dealing only in prohibited products. FBO is using the premises for
-- 4 of 6 --
[ 5 of 6 ] C.C. NO.1159/MISC/2026
storing the food articles and it so happened that some prohibited items
were also found in the shop. Further, right to carry on business is
guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. Of
course, there is no right to trade in banned items. But the FBO can sell
other products in his premises. By sealing the premises, the FBO’s right
to livelihood is affected. This will have a disproportionate impact on his
rights. Even if there is justification in initially sealing the premise, at
some point of time or the other, it has to be de-sealed. Merely for the
reason that banned products were kept for sale, a premises cannot be
closed forever. That is why, the Rules provide for sealing the premises
only for one reason i.e. inability to adhere to the procedure
contemplated in Section 38(1)(c) of the Act or the proviso thereto.
Thus, even the sealing of the said shop was justified, it eventually
needed to be de-sealed. It is not necessary that the said premises should
continue to remain closed as that may not serve any purpose. In any
event, by keeping the shop sealed, the investigation in this case is not
going to be advanced. Therefore, considering that, the fact that, the
applicant himself was in custody of the sealed premises and the
prohibited food articles have been seized, the premises can be ordered
to be de-sealed. If the premises is ordered to be de-sealed, no prejudice
would be caused to the investigation. Considering all these
circumstances, the premises can be de-sealed by imposing certain
conditions, which will suffice the purpose, for which the application is
opposed by the FSO and the learned APP. Therefore, considering all
these circumstances, this Court proceeds to pass following order.
O R D E R
1. The application is allowed.
2. The Food Safety Officer is directed to remove the seal from the
-- 5 of 6 --
[ 6 of 6 ] C.C. NO.1159/MISC/2026
premises situated at M/s Jai Maharashtra Pan Bdi Shop, Shivaji Nagar,
Opp. Plot No.18, Near U. P. Dairy, Govandi, Mumbai-43 sealed in C.R.
No.521/2026 registered at Shivaji Nagar Police Station, within 07
days from the date of this order.
3. Applicant/FBO–Anand Kumar Laltaprasad Chaorasiya is directed to
execute indemnity bond of Rs.5,00,000/-(Rs. Five Lakhs Only) before
the Food Safety Officer and give undertakings that He shall not use or
let the premises for storing the prohibited food articles and not
indulge himself in similar kind of offence in the future.
4. The Food Safety Officer is directed to prepare detailed panchnama of
the said sealed premises, while removing the seal and obtain colour
photographs at the cost of the applicant and submit the compliance
report to this Court within 07 days from the date of de-sealing.
5. This order is only limited to the extent of de-sealing of the premises
and it has no effect on any pending Civil or other litigation in any
other Court or lawful authority.
( P. P. Deshmukh )
Judicial Magistrate (F.C.),
Dated : 27.07.2026 46th Court, Mazgaon, Mumbai.
RRRT.
16:05
-- 6 of 6 --