Diverging lab results can invalidate prosecution under food safety regulations, warranting quashing of proceedings.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS TUESDAY, THE 27^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 7TH MAGHA, 1947 CRL.MC NO. 179 OF 2026 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.431 OF 2016 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS I ,PERUMBAVOOR PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 AND 2:

1 ELDHO P.VARGHESE AGED 38 YEARS PUTHENKUTY HOUSE, KARIYELI, KOMBANAD P.O, PERUMBAVOOR, PIN - 683546

2 M/S. K.K.R FOOD PRODUCTS OKKAL P.O, CHELLAMATTOM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS NOMINEE, ELDHO P.VARGHESE, PIN - 688546 BY ADVS.

SRI.R.KRISHNAKUMAR (CHERTHALA)

SMT.TINY THOMAS RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031

2 FOOD SAFETY OFFICER, PERUMBAVOOR CIRCLE, NEAR MINI CIVIL STATION, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683542 BY ADVS.

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ADDL.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION OTHER PRESENT:

ADGP. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR- SRI.M.P.PRASANTH THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

27.01.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

Dated this the 27^th day of January, 2026

O R D E R

The petitioners are the accused 1 and 2 in C.C.

No. 431/2016 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Perumbavoor (‘Trial Court’, for brevity), which has been registered on the basis of a complaint registered by the second respondent alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 3 .1 (zx), 3(1)(zz)(v), 26(2)(i)(ii), 27(1), 38(1)(a)(i), 59(i) &(ii) and 51 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (‘Act’, for short), read with Regulation 2.9.3.2 of the Food Safety and Standards (Food Products and Food Additives) Regulations, 2011 (‘Regulations’, for short).

2. The concise case of the prosecution is that;

On 04.09.2015, at around 11:30 hours, the second respondent visited the premises of the second petitioner and purchased eight packets of chilly powder by paying Rs. 252.76/-. The said samples were sent to a food analyst, who, by Form B, reported that the samples do not conform to the standards prescribed for chilly powder as laid down under Regulation 2.9.3.2 of the Regulations. Thus, the sample was substandard under Section 3 .1 (zx) of the Act. After that, the second respondent, as requested by the first accused, sent the second sample to the Referral Laboratory under Section 46(4) of the Act. Nonetheless, the Referral Laboratory found the presence of ‘added starch’ in the food product and heavy metals such as lead and arsenic higher than the prescribed limit.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Director General of Prosecution.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in view of the divergent views taken by the two laboratories, the proceedings under the Act are not maintainable in view of Rule 3.1.1 of Chapter 3 of the Food Safety and Standards Rules, 2011 (‘Rules’, for brevity). While dealing with identical matters, by Annexures A4 and A5 orders, this Court has quashed the proceedings. In view of the declaration of law in Annexures A4 and A5 orders, the petitioners are also entitled to the benefit of the said orders. Hence, the entire proceedings may be quashed.

5. The learned Additional Director General of Prosecution opposed the Crl.M.C. He submits that the case of the year 2016. It is nearly after ten years that the present Crl.M.C is filed. The Crl.M.C is only to be dismissed on the ground of delay. Nonetheless, he did not dispute the findings in Annexures A4 and A5 orders, and tacitly conceded to the principles laid down in the afore-said orders have attained finality.

6. The prosecution was launch