Back
Quashes Criminal Case Against Britannia Dairy Over Delayed FSS Notice
Justice Bhonsale rules that the company was denied its right to have the sample re-tested after receiving notice six months post-expiry.
The has quashed criminal proceedings against over allegations that its cheese cubes were unsafe, holding that the prosecution could not continue after the company was deprived of under the () and the Rules framed thereunder.
Justice Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale allowed Britannia’s application under (now ), finding that the delayed notice and non-supply of the laboratory report had effectively extinguished the company’s .
The Cheese Cubes and the Delayed Notice
The case dates back to , when Food Safety Officer P. S. Pawar purchased four packets of Britannia Cheese Cubes (Sour Cream and Onion) from a outlet at R City Mall in Ghatkopar, Mumbai. The product, packed on , had a shelf life of nine months, expiring on .
A Food Analyst’s report dated , declared the sample infested with fungus and therefore unsafe under Section 3(1)(zz)(iii) and (x) of the . However, Britannia, the marketer of the product, was not notified until — nearly six months after the product had expired. Along with the notice, the company requested a copy of the laboratory report, but it was never supplied.
What the Court Found
The High Court examined the mandatory procedures under the and Rules. Under , a notice must be given to any person whose name and address are disclosed on the label. grants the food business operator the right to have the fourth part of the sample analysed by an -accredited or -notified laboratory. provides for an appeal against the Food Analyst’s report to the Designated Officer.
The court noted that because the notice was issued after the shelf life had ended, Britannia could no longer exercise its option to have the sample re-tested. Additionally, without the laboratory report, the company could not file an appeal. The court emphasised that the word “shall” in the Rules made these procedures mandatory.
Justice Bhonsale also criticised the magistrate’s order issuing process, describing it as a “” that did not demonstrate any . Since two accused were based in Baramati, Pune — outside the territorial jurisdiction of the — an inquiry under was mandatory before process could be issued.
The State’s Defence
The respondents argued that Britannia was conducting business from an unlicensed premises (Reay Road, Mazgaon) while holding a licence only for Ballard Estate, thus violating . However, the court noted that this licensing violation was not the basis of the complaint against Britannia; the complaint invoked and other provisions relating to unsafe food.
The court held that the provided under the must be strictly complied with, and that the delay in issuing notice, non-supply of the report, and consequent loss of the rendered the continuation of the prosecution an .
Decision and Implications
Allowing the application, the court quashed Criminal Case No. 5349/SS/2014 pending before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, along with the order of issuance of process dated , and all subsequent proceedings.
The ruling underscores the importance of in food safety prosecutions. While the Act aims to ensure safe food, the safeguards designed to protect the accused cannot be bypassed. The decision does not condone food safety violations but reinforces that the mandatory procedures under the must be followed .
Key Observations from the Judgment
“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 .”
“The Order of Issuance of Process is clearly a and does not indicate or reflect any .”
“It cannot be that the mandatory provisions and safeguards as provided under the which is a Special Act are not complied with in their .”
