Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL, J.
Piyush Gupta And Another - Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. and Another - Opposite Parties
Application U/S 482 No. 25418 of 2024
Decided On : 10-02-2025
(A) Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 - Sections 26(2)(i), 59(1) - Quashing of summoning order - Applicants, a restaurant and its employee, challenged summons for using unsafe turmeric powder in food preparation - Court examined definitions of 'food business operator' and 'food' under the Act, asserting that responsibility lies with the food business operator to ensure safety - Liability for unsafe food primarily rests with the manufacturer unless negligence is proven - Application allowed, proceeding quashed against applicants. (Paras 1, 2, 9, 28, 30)
(B) Liability of Food Business Operators - Defined under Section 3(1)(o) of the Act, operators must ensure compliance with safety standards - Strict liability of manufacturers for unsafe food products emphasized - Defense available to operators if they can prove due diligence in sourcing food products. (Paras 21, 25)
Facts of the case:
The applicants were summoned for using unsafe turmeric powder found in their restaurant, claimed to have been purchased from a licensed manufacturer. The food analyst's report indicated the presence of lead chromate in the turmeric powder. (Paras 3, 6)
Findings of Court:
The court concluded that the applicants had complied with the Act's requirements, and the liability for the unsafe turmeric powder lies with the manufacturer. (Paras 28, 30)
Issues: Whether the restaurant qualifies as a food business operator and the extent of liability for using unsafe food ingredients. (Paras 10, 21)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that a food business operator is responsible for ensuring food safety but is not liable for unsafe ingredients purchased from a licensed manufacturer without evidence of negligence. (Paras 27, 28)
Result: Application allowed.
Based on the provided legal document, the liability of a food business operator is not automatically attracted when unsafe food is found in their premises, especially if the food was purchased from a licensed or registered manufacturer with a proper invoice and guarantee of quality. The law emphasizes that the primary responsibility for ensuring food safety lies with the manufacturer or distributor of the food product.
In this case, the restaurant (food business operator) had purchased turmeric powder from a licensed manufacturer, with proper documentation and a guarantee of quality. The court found that such a purchase creates a prima facie presumption that the ingredient was of standard quality at the time of purchase. Therefore, unless there is evidence of negligence or breach of duty by the food business operator, their liability for the unsafe condition of the ingredient does not automatically arise.
Furthermore, the law provides defenses such as due diligence and reasonable precautions taken by the food business operator, which, if proven, can exempt them from liability. The responsibility for unsafe food primarily rests with the manufacturer or distributor who issued the guarantee, unless the food business operator failed in their duty to verify or ensure safety beyond the purchase documentation.
In summary, the liability of the food business operator is not attracted solely on the basis of the presence of unsafe ingredients purchased from a licensed source with proper documentation, provided they have exercised due diligence and complied with all applicable standards and regulations.
JUDGMENT :
Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, J.
1. I heard Sri Anil Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Kabeer Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicants, and Sri Pankaj Saxena, learned AGA for the State.
2. The instant application has been filed to quash the summoning order dated 16.2.2024 passed by A.C.J.M.-I, Court No.16, Shahjahanpur in Case No. 83 of 2024 (State vs. Piyush Gupta and others), under Section 26(2)(i), 59(i) Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 2006") as well as the entire proceeding of the aforesaid case.
Factual Matrix
3. Applicant No.1 is the employee of applicant No.2 which is the sole proprietorship concerned of Devendra Singh Negi. Applicant No.2 is a restaurant, dealing with selling different kinds of prepared food. Initially Form-C lincence under the Act, 2006 was issued to Rakhi Arora on 11.2.2021. Subsequently, a Form-C licence of applicant No.2 was transferred in the name of Devendra Singh Negi on 11.2.2024. On 21.3.2023 premises of applicant No.2 was inspected by Chief Food Security Officer, Sahajahanpur along with his team and on demand of the Chief Food Security Officer, the applicant No.1 showed licence of applicant No.2 which was valid up to 10.2.2024. Thereafter, the Chief Food Security Officer purchased four packets of turmeric powder out of five packets of turmeric powder of Goldiee Masala Brand, found in the premises of applicant No.2. Thereafter, the sealed packets of turmeric powder were sent for examination on 22.3.2023 to the Government Food Laboratory, Lucknow. As per the report dated 15.5.2023 of the food analyst, Government Food Laboratory, Lucknow, the sealed packets of the turmeric powder were found having lead chromate which is harmful for human consumption, hence the sample was declared unsafe. Thereafter, after getting the required permission on 29.23.2023, under Section 42(4) of the Food Safety and Security Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as "Act,2006"), from the Commissioner Food Security, Lucknow, the complaint was filed by the Food Security Officer, Sahjahanpur on 9.2.2024. Thereafter, on perusal of the complaint and other document, learned Magistrate has taken cognizance and issued summon under Section 59(1) of the Act, 2006 to the applicants by order dated 16.2.2024 which is impugned in the present application.
Submission of learned counsel for the applicants
4. Sri Anil Tiwari, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Kabeer Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicants, has submitted that applicant No.2 had purchased sealed packets of turmeric powder of Goldiee Masala Brand from his licenced manufacturer and properly stored the same in the state it was purchased. If any ingredient is found in the sealed packet of the turmeric powder of a branded company that made it unsafe, then there will be no liability of the applicants and it is the manufacturer of the turmeric powder who will be liable for that. It is further submitted that the applicants were not selling the turmeric powder of Goldiee Masala Brand, but they were using the same while preparing the food that was served to the customers subsequently. Therefore, applicant No.2 will not fall within the definition of food business operator but it will fall within the definition of consumer.
5. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that even if for the sake of argument if the applicant is treated as food business operator then he will be liable under Section 26(2) of the Act, 2006 only when it stores any article of food for the purpose of sale, but applicant No.2 did not store the turmeric powder of Goldiee Masala Brand for sale but it stored the same for consumption to prepare food in the restaurant without any knowledge about the contents of the sealed packet of turmeric powder of Goldiee Masala Brand. Therefore, applicants cannot be held liable under Section 26(2) of the Act, 2006. It is also submitted that the liability of the food business operator at the most could
A food business operator is liable for food safety only if negligence is proven; otherwise, liability rests with the manufacturer of unsafe food products.
Turmeric powder qualifies as food under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, and selling it as 'pooja' does not exempt the seller from liability for sale of adulterated food.
Criminal liability under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act requires clear evidence of managerial responsibility, which was absent in this case.
Any food article which is hazardous or injurious to public health is a potential danger to fundamental right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of Constitution of India.
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.
Food adulteration - Bail granted - Mere possession or storage of noxious food or drink would not attract the ingredients of offence under section 273 of the Indian Penal Code, unless it is sold or of....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the provisions of the Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006 have an overriding effect over the Indian Penal Code, and the procedure for launching....
The main legal point established is the requirement of compliance with time limits for analysis report and recommendation for prosecution, and the need for a separate license for a milk chilling cent....
Complaints lacking specific allegations against petitioners are insufficient for establishing criminal liability under food safety regulations.
The discretion of the Commissioner of Food Safety to approve prosecution beyond one year under Section 77 and the liability of directors under Section 66 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.
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
