Bombay HC Quashes Britannia Dairy Case Over Denial of Right to Re-Test Under FSS Act

Bombay HC Quashes Britannia Dairy Case Over Denial of Right to Re-Test Under FSS Act

Justice Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale of the Bombay High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against Britannia Dairy Private Limited, holding that the company was denied statutory safeguards under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSS Act). The court found that the delayed issuance of notice, coupled with the non-supply of the Food Analyst's report, effectively robbed the company of its right to seek re-testing and file an appeal before prosecution was launched.

The case arose from a sample of Britannia Cheese Cubes (Sour Cream and Onion), manufactured by Schreiber Dynamix Dairies Limited and marketed by Britannia Dairy. On July 30, 2013, a Food Safety Officer collected four packets from a Big Bazaar store in Mumbai. The product, packed on February 12, 2013, had a shelf life of nine months, expiring on November 12, 2013. The Food Analyst's report, dated August 14, 2013, declared the sample "infested with fungus" and unsafe under the Act.

Britannia Dairy, a wholly owned subsidiary of Britannia Industries Limited, was served notice under the FSS Rules only on May 17, 2014—over six months after the product's shelf life had ended. The company contended that this delay, along with the failure to provide the laboratory report, prevented it from exercising its statutory right to have the fourth part of the sample analysed by an NABL-accredited laboratory and from filing an appeal against the analyst's findings.

The state argued that the marketer bore liability regardless of sampling procedure, pointing to the company's alleged operation from an unlicensed premises as a separate violation. However, the court noted that the complaint did not charge the company under the licensing provisions, and the prosecution's case rested squarely on the allegedly unsafe product.

Examining the statutory framework, Justice Bhonsale emphasised that Sections 46 and 47 of the FSS Act, read with Rules 2.4.5 and 2.4.6 of the FSS Rules , confer explicit rights on a person whose name appears on the product label. "By issuing a notice after the expiry of the shelf life, the Applicant has clearly lost its right to exercise the option available under 2.4.5(1) and 2.4.6 of the FSS Rules ," the court observed. The report of the Food Analyst was never forwarded to the applicant despite a request, further compounding the denial.

The court also criticised the magistrate's order issuing process as a "rubber stamp order" lacking application of mind. Since some accused resided beyond the magistrate's territorial jurisdiction, an inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was mandatory but was not conducted.

"It cannot be that the mandatory provisions and safeguards as provided under the FSS Act which is a Special Act are not complied with in their proper letter and spirit ," the court stated. "It cannot be that the noticee/proposed accused is denied the opportunity which is available under the statute to prove its innocence or have a probable defence ."

Concluding that the continuation of proceedings would amount to an abuse of the court's process, the High Court quashed Criminal Case No. 5349/SS/2014 and all related proceedings under Section 482 of the CrPC (now Section 528 of the BNSS). The decision underscores the strict compliance required of prosecuting authorities with procedural safeguards designed to protect the rights of food business operators.