Accreditation of laboratories is vital for valid prosecution under the Food Safety and Standards Act.

ORDER The petitioners are accused Nos. 2 to 4 in S.T.No.522 of 2020 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kattakada. The case originated from a complaint filed by the Food Safety Officer, Kattakada Circle, for offences under Sections 3 (1)(zz)(xi), 26(1, 26(2), 27(1) and Section 3 1 of the Food Safety and Standards Act , 2006 r/w Regulation 2.3.29.2 of Food Safety and Standards [Food Product Standards and Food Additives] Regulations, 2011. The complaint was filed alleging that the sample of ‘Soyabean Sauce’ collected from the shop did not conform to the standards prescribed in the Food Safety and Standards [Food Product Standards and Food Additives] Regulations, 2011 and was found to be unsafe for human consumption on chemical analysis at the Government Analysts’ Laboratory, Thiruvananthapuram.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that even though the Government Analysts’

Laboratory, Thiruvananthapuram, is an accredited laboratory, it does not have the accreditation for testing the contents of ‘Soyabean Sauce’. As per Section 3 (p) of the Food Safety and Standards Act , 2006, a Food Laboratory must be accredited by the National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration Laboratories (NABL). The Government Analysts’ Laboratory, where the sample was analyzed to prepare Annexure III report, is not having NABL accreditation as mandated under Section 43 of the , 2006.

3. I heard the learned ADGP also.

4. On careful scrutiny of the Scope of Accreditation, I am convinced that the laboratory did not have the accreditation for testing or allowing the Food Analyst to analyze the sample of ‘Soyabean Sauce’. Being so, there cannot be any successful prosecution based on the report of the test conducted in an unauthorized laboratory. On that sole ground, the petition is entitled to succeed.

In the result, the Crl.M.C is allowed. All further proceedings in S.T. No.552 of 2020 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kattakada, as against the petitioners, is quashed.