Back
P. V. KUNHIKRISHNAN
Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent
ORDER :
Petitioner is the 4th accused in S.T. No.303/2016 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thalassery. The above case is filed by the 2nd respondent alleging offences punishable under Sections 3(1) (zz) (v) and 3(1) (zf) (B) (ii) & C(i), 26, 26(2) (i) & (ii), 27(1) & (2)(c), 27(3) (c) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (for short, the FSS Act) read with Regulation No.2.12 of the Food Safety and Standards (Food Products Standards and Food Additives) Regulations, 2011 (for short, the FSS Regulations) and Regulation No.2.4.5.(38) of the Food Safety and Standards (Packaging and Labelling) Regulations, 2011 (for short, FSS (P&L) Regulations).
2. On 22.06.2015 at about 11.15 am, the 2nd respondent Food Safety Officer, Dharmadam Circle inspected the premises of M/s. Day Mart Hyper Market, running in door No: AP. 15/14 to 19, situated at Chakkarakal in Anjarakkandy Grama Panchayat. At the time of inspection, the 1st accused was conducting the trade of food articles. After observing all formalities under the FSS Act, Rules and Regulations made thereunder and after giving Form-VA notice duly acknowledged by the 1st accused and in the presence of the 1st accused and t
Prosecution under the Food Safety and Standards Act requires a confirming report from the Referral Laboratory; divergence in findings precludes legal action.
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.
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....
Non-compliance with the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and the Rules of 1955 can lead to the benefit of doubt for the accused, especially in cases where the prosecution f....
The absence of importer information on a carbonated drink label does not amount to misbranding under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, especially where a valid trade agreement between In....
The court established that an offence under the Food Safety and Standards Act is committed upon receipt of the food analyst's report, and any prosecution must adhere to mandatory timelines; failure t....
The absence of the manufacturer as an accused in food safety violations renders prosecution against the licensee untenable, violating procedural requirements of the FSS Act.
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
