Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(J&K) 784

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR
Wasim Sadiq Nargal, J
S.D. Mevada – Appellant
Versus
Union Territory Of Jammu & Kashmir – Respondent
CRM(M) 116/2022 | CrlM(401/2022)

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Reyaz Ahmad Mir
For the Respondents: Hakim Aman Ali

The Designated Officer possesses the statutory power to refer a food sample to a Referral Laboratory after recording written reasons if the initial test report is found incomplete or erroneous, and such referral, being in the public interest, does not require a prior hearing for the accused.

Headnote:(A) Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 - Section 59, 66 - Food Safety and Standards Rules, 2011 - Rule 2.4.3 - Referral of food sample to Referral Laboratory - Requirement of recording reasons in writing - The Court held that the Designated Officer is empowered to refer a sample to the Referral Laboratory if they find the initial report to be erroneous, provided reasons are recorded in writing. Where important safety parameters (like antibiotic residues, pesticides, heavy metals) were missing in the initial report, such referral is legally permissible in the public interest.

(B) Vicarious Liability - Managing Director of a company - Liability for offences under the Act - The Managing Director, being responsible for the overall conduct of the company’s business, is not entitled to blanket immunity solely because a subordinate officer was nominated for food safety. Proof of ‘due diligence’ or ‘lack of knowledge’ is a matter to be determined during the trial, not at the stage of a Section 482 petition. (Paras 46, 47, 49)

Facts of the case:
A complaint was filed against the petitioners (authorized representatives of a Dairy Cooperative Union) after a food sample (Amul Taza milk) was found ‘unsafe’ by a Referral Laboratory. The petitioners sought to quash the complaint, arguing that the Designated Officer failed to record reasons for referring the sample to the Referral Laboratory and that the Managing Director held no vicarious liability.

Findings of Court:
The court rejected the contentions, finding that the Designated Officer had duly recorded reasons for the referral due to the initial analytical report being incomplete. The Court emphasized that there is no statutory mandate for a pre-decisional hearing before a sample is referred to a Referral Laboratory.

Issues: 1. Whether the referral of the sample to the Referral Laboratory was vitiated by failure to record reasons. 2. Whether the Managing Director is entitled to immunity under the Act.

Ratio Decidendi: Once a Referral Laboratory, as a statutory scientific authority, declares a sample ‘unsafe’, that report holds an overriding effect over any initial analytical reports. The court’s role under Section 482 is limited and cannot substitute scientific opinion or conduct a mini-trial on the efficacy of due diligence by the accused.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. petition for quashing criminal complaint regarding food safety standards. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. petitioners' arguments on procedural lapses and vicarious liability. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
3. respondents' arguments justifying the referral mechanism. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
4. court's analysis of the legality of the designated officer's referral under rule 2.4.3. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29)
5. finality of referral laboratory findings over initial food analyst report. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41)
6. vicarious liability of company heads under the food safety act. (Para 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49)
7. paramount importance of public health over technical delays. (Para 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57)
8. dismissal of petition and direction for expeditious conclusion of trial. (Para 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62)

JUDGMENT

1) Through the medium of the instant petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has sought the following relief(s):

“In the premises it is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash and set aside the complaint titled State through Food Inspector u/s S.D. Mevada and others pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate) along with the cognizance order dated 07.10.2021 passed by the Hon'ble Court.

Any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents in the interest of equity.”

BRIEF FACTS:

2) The petitioners claim to be the authorised representatives of M/s BA/Banaskantha District Cooperative Milk Producers’ Union Ltd., Palanpur, Gujarat (hereinafter referred to as the “Society”), which is a non-portable undertaking set up for the purpose of production of milk and milk products. The Society plays a vital role in enhancing the economy of the country, besides catering to the needs of its countrymen.

3) The petitioners are aggrieved by the cognizance order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shopian on 07.10.2021, by virtue whereof summons were directed to be issued against the accused persons, and the same has been called in question through the medium of the instant petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS:

4) It is the specific case of the petitioners that the respondent/complainant had taken a sample of Homogenized Toned Milk (Amul Taza) and, after completion of requisite formalities, the sample was finally sent to the Food Analyst for analysis. It is submitted that the Food Analyst tested the sample and issued report bearing No. FSSA/K/FA/2020-21/P-500 dated 27.10.2020, declaring the sample as standard quality. A copy of the initial analytical report dated 27.10.2020 has been placed on record along with the instant petition.

5) The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, without consulting the petitioners’ company, the respondent treated the report as erroneous for reasons best known to them and sent the sample to the Referral Laboratory without giving any reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioners. The learned counsel further submits that, upon receiving the analytical report from the Referral Laboratory declaring the sample as unsafe, a complaint was filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shopian through the Food Safety Officer, Shopian.

6) The further case of the petitioners is that, before receiving the amended analytical report from the Referral Laboratory, some unknown report had come before the respondents, which they neither appended with the complaint nor provided a copy thereof to the petitioners, which, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, creates doubt and suspicion upon the whole process initiated by the respondents against the petitioners. Upon filing of the complaint, the petit

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(J&K) 784

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGARWasim Sadiq Nargal, JS.D. Mevada – AppellantVersusUnion Territory Of Jammu & Kashmir – RespondentCRM(M) 116/2022 | CrlM(401/2022)

The Designated Officer possesses the statutory power to refer a food sample to a Referral Laboratory after recording written reasons if the initial test report is found incomplete or erroneous, and such referral, being in the public interest, does not require a prior hearing for the accused.

Cases Referred (2)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR
Wasim Sadiq Nargal, J
S.D. Mevada – Appellant
Versus
Union Territory Of Jammu & Kashmir – Respondent
CRM(M) 116/2022 | CrlM(401/2022)