Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 12634

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
K Suresh Reddy, J
Pepsico India Holding Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
State of A P – Respondent
Criminal Petition No: 6749/2016 | Criminal Petition No: 7011/2017 | Criminal Petition No: 10639/2017 | Criminal Petition No: 3523/2018 | Criminal Petition No: 3536/2018 | Criminal Petition No: 2611/2022 | Criminal Petition No: 2614/2022 | Criminal Petition No: 4508/2022 | Criminal Petition No: 1647/2023

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sai Sanjay Suraneni, Jyothi Ratna Anumolu
For the Respondents: Public Prosecutor (AP)

A food laboratory report is invalid if the laboratory has not been officially notified by the relevant authority under the governing statute, even if it holds accreditation. Such a fundamental defect in the prosecution's evidence renders the criminal proceedings unsustainable and liable to be quashed.

Headnote:(A) Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 - Sections 3(p) and 43 - Food Laboratory - Definition and recognition - Requirement of twin test: accreditation by an accreditation body and recognition/notification by the authority - In absence of notification, report of analyst is invalid and vitiates prosecution. (Paras 11, 12, 13)

(B) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of proceedings - When foundation of prosecution is invalid due to non-compliance with statutory requirements, continuation of proceedings constitutes abuse of process of law. (Para 16)

Facts of the case:
Prosecution was initiated against various entities for alleged food contamination based on reports from a testing facility. The petitioners challenged the validity of these reports, contending the facility was not officially notified under the relevant statute.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the testing facility failed the mandatory twin test of accreditation and official notification, rendering the analyst's report legally unsustainable.

Issues: Whether a testing report is valid if the facility is accredited but not officially notified by the authority, and whether such a defect warrants quashing of criminal proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: The statutory definition of a testing facility requires both accreditation and official notification. Non-compliance with these mandatory provisions goes to the root of the prosecution, rendering the analyst's report inadmissible and the proceedings an abuse of process.

Result: Petitions allowed; proceedings quashed.

Table of Content
1. initiation of criminal process based on food analyst reports of unsafe food. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
2. dispute over the validity of lab reports due to lack of section 43 notification. (Para 7 , 8)
3. lab must be both accredited and specifically notified under the act. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
4. invalid lab reports render criminal proceedings non-maintainable and subject to quashing. (Para 16 , 17)

COMMON ORDER:

As the issue involved in all these Criminal Petitions is one and the same, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. Details of the Criminal Petitions are as follows:

(i) Criminal Petition No. 6749 of 2016 is filed by the petitioners/A2 and A3, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to quash the proceedings initiated against them in C.C.No.1193 of 2015 on the file of the Court of the learned II Additional Munsif Magistrate, Ongole, Prakasam District, for the offences alleged under Sections 3(i)(zz)(iii) and 26(2)(i) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (for short, “the FSS Act”), punishable under Section 59(i) thereof.

(ii) Criminal Petition No.7011 of 2017 is filed by the petitioners/A2

and A3 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

1973, seeking to quash the proceedings initiated against them in

S.T.C. No.637 of 2016 on the file of the Court of the II Additional

Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tirupati, Chittoor District, for the

offences alleged under Sections 3(i)(zz)(iii), 26(2)(i) and 27 (1) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (for short, “the FSS Act”), punishable under Section 59(i) thereof.

(iii) Criminal Petition No.10639 of 2017 is filed by the petitioner/A4 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to quash the proceedings initiated against him in C.C. No.509 of 2016 on the file of the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kandukur, Prakasam District, for the offences alleged under Sections 3(i)(zz)(iii) and 26(2)(i) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (for short, “the FSS Act”), punishable under Section 59(i) thereof.

(iv) Criminal Petition No.3523 of 2018 is filed by the petitioners/Accused Nos.3, 4, 5 and 6, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to quash the proceedings initiated against them, in C.C. No.330 of 2017 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Srikakulam, for the offences alleged under Sections 3(i)(zz)(iii), 26(2)(i) and 27 (1) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (for short, “the FSS Act”), punishable under Section 59(i) thereof.

(v) Criminal Petition No.3536 of 2018 is filed by the petitioners/Accused Nos.3,4,5 and 6, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to quash the proceedings initiated against them in C.C. No.603 of 2017 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Srikakulam, for the offences alleged under Sections 3(i)(zz)(iii), 26(2)(i) and 27 (1) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (for short, “the FSS Act”), punishable under Section 59(i) thereof.

(vi) Criminal Petition No.2611 of 2022 is filed by the petitioners/Accused Nos.3 and 4 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to quash the proceedings initiated against them in C.C. No.119 of 2017 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District, for the offences alleged under Sections 3(i)(zz)(iii), 26(2)(i) and 27 (2) (c) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (for short, “the FSS Act”), punishable under Section 59(i) thereof.

(vii) Criminal Petition No.2614 of 2022 is filed by the petitioners/Accused Nos.6 and 7 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to quash the proceedings initiated against them in C.C. No.1154 of 2016 on the file of the Court of the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam for the offences alleged under Sections 3(i)(zz)(iii)

Click Here to Read the rest of this document