Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.
Shyamkumar Tulsilal Warnawal – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Key Points: - The requirement that food testing must be conducted in NABL-accredited laboratories recognized by the Food Authority under Section 43 of the FSS Act, and that non-compliance invalidates the analysis and prosecution (!) . - The court quashed Summary Criminal Case No.5325/2016 because the Referral Food Laboratory Ghaziabad was not accredited/recognized at the time of analysis, rendering its report invalid for prosecution (!) (!) (!) . - Initial Food Analyst report from Pune showed conformity to standards, but reliance on the non-accredited referral laboratory's report led to invalid prosecution (!) . - The combined interpretation of Sections 3(p) and 43 requires laboratories to be NABL-accredited and recognized by the Food Authority to be valid for analysis (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The Food Authority may notify laboratories and regulate submission procedures for analyses conducted by Food Analysts under the Act (!) (!) (!) . - The decision emphasizes mandatory nature of accreditation/recognition for laboratories used in food analysis under the FSS Act (!) . - The court relies on the lack of proper accreditation/recognition to deem the primary prosecution-instrument (the laboratory report) unreliable (!) (!) (!) . - The evaluation includes consideration of the procedural aspects of issue of process and examination of complainant under sections 200 and 204 CrPC in context of a public servant as complainant (!) (!) (!) .
JUDGMENT :
(URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)
1. The instant application is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of Summary Criminal Case No.5325/2016 pending before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur.
2. The facts necessary for disposal of the application are as under:
The applicants are challenging complaint, lodged on 4.4.2016 by the Food Safety Officer, which is registered as Summary Criminal Case No.5325/2016 wherein the applicants are charged for violation of Sections 26(2)(i), 27(2)(c) read with 3(1)(zz) and Regulation 2.12 of the Food Safety Standards (Food Product Standards and Additives) Regulations 2011, Regulation 2.1.1 of the Food Safety Standards (Contaminants, Toxins and Residues) Regulations, 2011 punishable under Sections 59 and 66 of the FSS Act. The applicants are also assailing order of issuance of process by learned Magistrate on 17.4.2017.
3. In the complaint, complainant Food Inspector alleged that on 30.4.2015, he inspected premises of “Nestle India Limited’s Logistic Hub, wherein “Maggi Instant Noodles with Tastemaker” (Product) and “Baby and Me” Nutritional Supplement were stocked. The complainant purchased 4 packets o
Food testing must be conducted in NABL-accredited laboratories; non-compliance invalidates the analysis and any subsequent prosecution.
Food samples must be analyzed in NABL-accredited laboratories to ensure compliance with the Food Safety and Standards Act; non-compliance renders analysis reports inadmissible.
Prosecution under the Food Safety and Standards Act requires a confirming report from the Referral Laboratory; divergence in findings precludes legal action.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that delay in the food analyst's report and denial of appeal right do not warrant quashing the proceedings.
Directors who resign before the alleged offense cannot be held vicariously liable under food safety laws without specific allegations of their involvement at the time of the offense.
The court confirmed the conviction based on compliance with food safety regulations, determining specific procedural requirements were mandatory, while others were directory, influencing the admissib....
The judgment established that compliance with procedural requirements, specifically the service of the Public Analyst's report, is essential for the validity of prosecution in food adulteration cases....
The court reaffirmed that non-compliance with statutory provisions under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act can lead to acquittal, emphasizing the accused's rights to challenge the prosecution's....
Directors can be held vicariously liable for company offenses under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act if they are responsible for the company's conduct, and delays in prosecution do not automat....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
