ORDER : The petitioners are the accused in C.C.No.113/2019 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Haripad, a case which arose out of a complaint filed by the Food Safety Officer, Haripad Circle under section 42(5) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). In the present petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the petitioners seek to quash the proceedings in the said case. 2. The complainant had purchased 2 Kgs of Coriander from the shop conducted by the first petitioner as licensee in Building No.337 situated in Ward No.17 at Nangiarkulangara in Chingoli Panchayat. The second petitioner is the warrantor who sold the above food item to the first petitioner. The aforesaid food item was found to have been unsafe under Section 3.1.(zz).(ix) of the Act since it contained dead and living insects in the analysis conducted by the Food Analyst. The second part of the sample was not sent to the Referral Food Laboratory since there was no such request in the appeal filed by the petitioners. In view of the above violation detected by the Food Safety Officer, he preferred a complaint before the learned Magistrate on 12.04.2019. The learned Magistrate took the complaint to files and issued summons to the petitioners to answer the charge under Section 26(1)(2)(i) read with Section 59(i) of the Act. 3. In the present petition, the petitioners would contend that the prosecution launched against them is prima facie unsustainable since the complaint does not bring out the offence alleged against them. It is further contended that there is infraction of the mandatory procedural requirements of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder, and hence the prosecution against them is liable to be quashed. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala. 5. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there had been flagrant violation of the requirement of Section 42(2) of the Act to analyse the food sample and to send the report mentioning the method of sampling and analysis within 14 days to the designated officer with a copy to the Commissioner of Food Safety. Thus, it is argued that the non-compliance of the aforesaid provision of law would vitiate the prosecution initiated against the petitioners. Thus, it is argued that the non-compliance of the aforesaid provision of law would vitiate the prosecution initiated against the petitioners. Per contra, the learned Additional Director General of Prosecution would submit that the time limit prescribed in the aforesaid Section is having no consequence if the Food Analyst had informed the Designated Officer and the Commissioner of Food Safety giving reasons for the failure to analyse the food sample within the aforesaid period and specifying the time to be taken for analysis in accordance with the proviso to Section 46(3) of the Act. By adverting to a statement submitted by the Food Analyst on 31.01.2018 mentioning that the analysis report of the 11 food samples described in the table thereunder could not be sent due to incompletion of the analysis of the sample within the stipulated time, the learned Additional Director General of Prosecution submitted that the requirement of the proviso to Section 46(3) of the Act is fulfilled since the food sample involved in this case is shown as item No.4 in that table. Thus, it is argued that the failure of the Food Analyst to send the analysis report within 14 days of the receipt of the sample cannot be taken as a reason to assail the prosecution in the present case. The argument advanced by the learned Additional Director General of Prosecution in the above regard has to be accepted since it is seen that there is substantial compliance of the requirements of the proviso to Section 46(3) of the Act, and hence the failure of the Food Analyst to complete the analysis of food within 14 days and to send the report to the Designated Officer and the Commissioner of Food Safety, cannot be taken as a ground to quash the prosecution initiated against the petitioners. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there had been complete non-compliance of the relevant provisions of law by the authorities concerned in dealing with the appeal filed by the petitioners, and hence the prosecution initiated against them is apparently vitiated due to the serious prejudice caused to the petitioners. Referring to Annexure-III copy of the Appeal Memorandum, the learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that the appeal against the report of the Food Analyst was preferred by the petitioners on 19.04.2018, but the authorities concerned slept over it. Referring to Annexure-III copy of the Appeal Memorandum, the learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that the appeal against the report of the Food Analyst was preferred by the petitioners on 19.04.2018, but the authorities concerned slept over it. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that even after the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.18288/2018 on 02.07.2018 directing the Assistant Commissioner of Food Safety to take up, consider and pass orders on the appeal with notice to the petitioners within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the above judgment, the authorities concerned did not take any action. It is thus argued that the complaint preferred by the Food Safety Officer contains the false representation in paragraph No.6 that the accused did not prefer appeal under section 46(4) of the Act and therefore the second part of the sample was not sent to the Referral Food Laboratory for analysis. 7. By referring to the case file maintained by the complainant, the learned Additional Director General of Prosecution submitted that the appeal filed by the petitioners was considered by the Assistant Commissioner of Food Safety, Alappuzha in compliance with the direction of this Court in W.P.(C) No.18288/2018 after giving notice to the petitioners, but the petitioners did not care to appear before the said authority. Accordingly, the Appellate Authority is said to have decided the appeal against the petitioners as per the order passed on 26.10.2019. Thus, according to the learned Additional Director General of Prosecution, there had been no infraction of the relevant provisions of law pertaining to the disposal of the appeal preferred by the persons aggrieved by the findings of Food Analyst. 8. On going through the records of the case, it is seen that there had been apparent laxity on the part of the authorities concerned in dealing with the appeal filed by the petitioners against the findings of the Food Analyst. As already stated above, Annexure-III would reveal that the petitioners preferred appeal against the findings of the Food Analyst on 19.04.2018. As already stated above, Annexure-III would reveal that the petitioners preferred appeal against the findings of the Food Analyst on 19.04.2018. Since the aforesaid appeal was not considered or disposed of by the Appellate Authority, this Court directed the Assistant Commissioner of Food Safety, Alappuzha, in W.P.(C) No.18288/2018, to take up, consider and pass orders in the statutory appeal filed by the petitioners within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of that judgment dated 02.07.2018. Instead of complying with the aforesaid direction of this Court, the prosecution is seen to have been launched against the petitioners on 12.04.2019. It is after six months from the launch of the prosecution as above that the Designated Officer felt it necessary to comply with the direction of this Court in the aforesaid writ petition to consider the appeal preferred by the petitioners. Accordingly, a notice is seen to have been issued to the petitioners on 14.10.2019 directing them to appear before the Assistant Commissioner of Food Safety and the Designated Officer, Alappuzha at 11:30 a.m on 21.10.2019 for a hearing. On 26.10.2019, the Assistant Commissioner of Food Safety and Designated Officer, Alappuzha passed the order rejecting the appeal, noting the absence of petitioners, and also stating the reason that the one and only remedy prescribed under the law is to challenge the findings of the Food Analyst through an appellate analysis, which was not availed by the food business operator, and hence the appeal preferred by the petitioners cannot be entertained. 9. At the outset, it has to be stated that the way in which the Appellate Authority dealt with the appeal preferred by the petitioners was in flagrant violation of the established principles of law. The fact that the authorities concerned paid no heed to the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.18288/2018 on 02.07.2018 for more than one year, discloses their recalcitrant and callous attitude in following rule of law. There is absolutely no explanation offered by the authorities concerned for their contemptuous act of ignoring the directions of this Court in the judgment dated 02.07.2018 in W.P.(C) No.18288/2018 to take up, consider and pass orders in the appeal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of that judgment. There is absolutely no explanation offered by the authorities concerned for their contemptuous act of ignoring the directions of this Court in the judgment dated 02.07.2018 in W.P.(C) No.18288/2018 to take up, consider and pass orders in the appeal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of that judgment. The fact that the authorities concerned ventured to launch prosecution against the petitioners on 12.04.2019 by misrepresenting that the accused did not prefer appeal, can only expose the contumacious conduct on the part of the department officials. The course adopted by the authorities concerned, deciding to consider the appeal filed by the petitioners after six months from the institution of the complaint against them is like putting the horse behind the cart. Needless to say that the basic canons of law to be followed in dealing with the prosecution of cases of this nature had been flown to winds by the authorities concerned. Thus, it has to be stated that the above conduct adopted by the department would vitiate the prosecution initiated against the petitioners. 10. The reasoning in the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Food Safety and the Designated Officer on 26.10.2019 in the appeal filed by the petitioners to reject the appeal, is not in consonance with the relevant provisions of law. The Appellate Authority had found fault with the petitioners for incorporating the relief sought for in the appeal memorandum, praying to reject the findings of the Analyst and exonerate the appellants by setting aside the aforesaid findings. According to the Appellate Authority, the one and only remedy which the petitioners could seek in an appeal filed under Section 46 (4) of the Act and Rule 2.4.6 of the Food Safety and Standards Rules was to challenge the findings of the Food Analyst by requesting the analysis of the other sample at the Referral Food Laboratory. The above view of the Appellate Authority is not in consonance with the aforesaid provisions of law. Sub Section (4) of Section 46 of the Act reads as follows: “46. Functions of Food Analyst (1) xxx xxx (4) An appeal against the report of Food Analyst shall lie before the Designated Officer who shall, if he so decides, refer the matter to the referral food laboratory as notified by the Food Authority for opinion.” 11. Sub Section (4) of Section 46 of the Act reads as follows: “46. Functions of Food Analyst (1) xxx xxx (4) An appeal against the report of Food Analyst shall lie before the Designated Officer who shall, if he so decides, refer the matter to the referral food laboratory as notified by the Food Authority for opinion.” 11. It is clear from the aforesaid provision of law that the question of referring the matter to the Referral Food Laboratory is only one of the options of the Designated Officer if he felt the above course to be followed. So also, it is clear from the wordings in Rule 2.4.6 of the Food Safety and Standards Rules that the sending of one part of the sample to the Referral Food Laboratory depends upon the decision of the Designated Officer in the above regard. The aforesaid provisions of law do not forbid the Designated Officer from considering the other challenges raised by the petitioners against the violation of the procedural requirements of law by the Food Analyst. Therefore, the Designated Officer cannot say the excuse that he did not consider the appeal preferred by the petitioners since there was no prayer in it to send the alternate sample to the Referral Food Laboratory. That apart, even in the absence of any prayer in that regard, the Designated Officer could have opted for sending the available sample to the Referral Food Laboratory after following the requisite procedures. Thus, it has to be concluded that the reasons stated by the Designated Officer/Appellate Authority in the order dated 26.10.2019 for rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioners, can only be taken as an attempt to cover up their failure to take prompt action in the appeal filed by the petitioners. 12. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, this is a typical case where there had been blatant violation of the prescribed procedures of law in dealing with the appeal preferred by the petitioners. No doubt, the above course adopted by the authorities concerned had caused prejudice to the petitioners since they lost their opportunity to challenge the findings of the Food Analyst, and also to have the food sample analysed at the Referral Food Laboratory at the appropriate time. That being so, the prayer in this petition to quash the prosecution proceedings against the petitioners, is well founded. That being so, the prayer in this petition to quash the prosecution proceedings against the petitioners, is well founded. In the result, the petition stands allowed. The proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.113/2019 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Haripad are hereby quashed.