The court emphasized that a marginal difference in standards of food quality does not exempt a party from prosecution under food safety laws.

1.This petition under S.482 of CrPC has been filed for quashing the complaint filed by the Food Safety Officer against the applicant for offences under S.26, S.27 & S.51 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (in short 'FSS Act 2006').

2.The necessary facts for the disposal of the present petition in short are that the Food Safety Officer had taken a sample of coriander powder on 15.12.2011 and the said food article was sent for chemical analysis to State Food Testing Laboratory, Bhopal. A report dated 30.12.2011 from the State Food Testing Laboratory, Bhopal was received, according to which, the sample was found to be of sub-standard quality. Accordingly, after completing the formalities, the complaint was filed.

3. It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that total ash (on dry) in the coriander powder was found 7.5% whereas the standard prescribed is 7% and since the difference is only 0.5%, therefore, there is a possibility of error of judgment in analysis. Thus, prima facie, no case is made out against the applicant warranting his prosecution. It is further submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the State Food Testing Laboratory, Bhopal is not accredited by National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration Laboratories or recognized by the Food Authority under S.43 of FSS Act, 2006, therefore, the report given by the State Food Testing Laboratory, Bhopal is not admissible in law and Chaturbhuj Meena has not been appointed as Food Analyst under S.45 of FSS Act, 2006.

4. Per contra, it is submitted by the counsel for the State that so far as the marginal difference of 0.5% is concerned, there is no provision in law which gives benefit to the accused granting exemption from prosecuting in a case if the margin of difference is upto 0.5%, therefore, it will be for the Trial Court to decide this question that whether there was an error of judgment in analysis or not. It is further submitted that so far as accreditation of the Laboratory is concerned, the Food Safety and Standard Authority of India has issued a clarification dated 5th July, 2011 and has clarified that the existing Food Testing Laboratories which are testing food samples under PFA will continue to perform their function of food testing under S.98 of FSS Act, 2006 till any notification is issued under S.43 of FSS Act, 2006. The letter dated 5th July, 2011 issued by Food Safety & Standards Authority of India has been placed on record as Annexure A - 1, which reads as under: -
“No.83 - Dir (Enf.) / FSSAI / 2011
Food Safety & Standards Authority of India
(A Statutory Regulatory Body of Govt. of India)
Ministry of Health & Family Welfare
3rd Floor, FDA Bhawan, Kotla Road,
New Delhi - 110 002
Dated: 5 July, 2011
To,
Food Safety Commissioners of all States / UTs
Subject: - Clarification on the status of Public
Labs functioning at Centre / State /
UT after the promulgation of FSS
Act, 2006 with effect from 5th August, 2011.
S.43 of the FSS Act requires that all food testing under the Act will be done in NABL or any other FSSAI approved accredited lab. State Governments and UT Government have already been advised in this regard and the results of a 'gap analysis' commissioned by FSSAI in respect of the State Labs have been shared for appropriate action for the upgradation of the Labs to accredited standards. However, from the interaction with the State Government it is clear that the process is likely to take some time and the labs will not be able to get accreditation before 5th August, 2011 when the FSS Act will become operational.
The matter has been examined and it is clarified that the existing Public Food Testing Laboratories