SupremeToday Landscape Ad
AI Thinking

AI Thinking...

Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!

Analysing the retrieved Case Laws

Scanned Judgements…!


AI Overview

AI Overview...

  • Seizure and Analysis of Food Items - Multiple sources confirm that food items such as murukku, jilebi, laddu, halva, and other bakery products are seized and sent for analysis to designated laboratories, including regional or notified food laboratories. The process involves collecting samples at the point of sale or storage, sealing them properly, and sending them to food analysts for testing. For example, A part of the sample along with Form-VII memorandum in a sealed packet was sent to the Food Analyst, Regional Analytical Laboratory, Kozhikode on 23.06.2015 ["2024 0 Supreme(Ker) 988"], and the authorised officer of the Food Authority shall take its sample and send to the Food Analyst of notified laboratory for analysis ["V.B.MURALEEDHARAN vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF FOODS SAFETY AND OTHERS - Kerala"].
  • Notified Laboratory Status - Several documents specify that samples are sent to notified laboratories, which are authorized under law to perform food analysis. For instance, the Food Analyst of notified laboratory is mentioned explicitly, indicating these labs are officially recognized for such testing ["2024 0 Supreme(Ker) 988"], ["V.B.MURALEEDHARAN vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF FOODS SAFETY AND OTHERS - Kerala"], ["2020 0 Supreme(Ker) 84"].
  • Timeframes and Procedures - The analysis reports are generally expected within specific periods, typically 14 days from sample receipt, and if samples are found unfit or broken, the analyst informs the authorities promptly. The Food Analyst after receiving the sample shall analyse and send the report within fourteen days ["2024 0 Supreme(Ker) 988"], ["V.B.MURALEEDHARAN vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF FOODS SAFETY AND OTHERS - Kerala"].
  • Legal and Regulatory Context - The law mandates that samples be sent promptly and analyzed by notified laboratories to ensure authenticity and prevent tampering. Delays or failure to send samples to notified labs, as noted in some cases, can vitiate proceedings and affect the legality of the process ["2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 5265"], ["V.B.MURALEEDHARAN vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF FOODS SAFETY AND OTHERS - Kerala"].
  • Specific Case of Murukku - In the case involving murukku, samples of murukku seized from shops or premises were sent for analysis to notified labs, and reports indicated whether the samples conformed to standards or contained prohibited substances. The sample of sterilized milk paneer 'Brand Gopal' does not conform to the standard ["2019 0 Supreme(Gau) 526"], and tested sample with opinion as 'unsafe' for the reason that the food contains 'Tartrazine' ["2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 62148"].
  • Conclusion - The seizure and sending of food items like murukku to RAL Kozhikode or other notified laboratories are standard legal procedures under food safety laws. Such laboratories are recognized authorities tasked with analyzing samples within prescribed timeframes, ensuring compliance with safety standards. The law emphasizes the importance of using notified laboratories for analysis to uphold procedural integrity and legal validity ["2024 0 Supreme(Ker) 988"], ["V.B.MURALEEDHARAN vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF FOODS SAFETY AND OTHERS - Kerala"], ["2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 5265"].
Legal Validity of RAL Kozhikode as a Notified Food Laboratory Under FSS Act 2006

Is RAL Kozhikode a Notified Laboratory for Food Sample Testing Under FSS Act?

In the food industry, ensuring compliance with safety standards is crucial, especially when samples like murukku are seized for analysis. A frequent question arises: Sample of food items murukku seized and sent to RAL Kozhikode for FSL – is it a notified laboratory? This post dives into the legal framework under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSS Act), examining whether RAL Kozhikode meets the criteria for a notified lab. We'll explore key provisions, accreditation requirements, and real-world implications, drawing from legal documents and case insights.

Disclaimer: This article provides general information based on available legal documents and is not a substitute for professional legal advice. Consult a qualified attorney for specific cases.

Understanding Notified Laboratories Under the FSS Act

The FSS Act, 2006, sets strict standards for food testing to protect public health. Sections 43 and 3(p) define a food laboratory as one established by Central or State Governments or other agencies that is both accredited by NABL (National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration Laboratories) or an equivalent agency and recognized by the Food Authority (FSSAI) 2025 Supreme(Bom) 469 2015 0 Supreme(Bom) 1254.

This dual requirement ensures reliability and uniformity in analysis. As per the documents, only laboratories that are both accredited and recognized by the Food Authority can be considered notified laboratories for analysis under the Act 2025 Supreme(Bom) 469 2025 0 Supreme(Bom) 287 2015 0 Supreme(Bom) 1254. Without this, test reports may lack legal standing in regulatory or court proceedings.

Recognition and Notification Process

The Food Authority notifies laboratories meeting these standards through formal gazette notifications. Transitional provisions allow certain public labs operating before the Act's enactment to continue temporarily, but they must obtain accreditation and recognition for official status. The Notification clarifies: public laboratories functioning at the time of enactment continued to operate under certain conditions until they received formal recognition and notification 2015 0 Supreme(Bom) 1254. However, this does not automatically make them notified.

Status of RAL Kozhikode: Not a Notified Laboratory

Based on the reviewed legal documents, RAL Kozhikode (Regional Analytical Laboratory, Kozhikode) is not listed or established as a notified laboratory under Sections 43 or 3(p) of the FSS Act. There is no reference confirming its NABL accreditation or FSSAI recognition in the provided materials 2025 Supreme(Bom) 469 2025 0 Supreme(Bom) 287 2015 0 Supreme(Bom) 1254.

For food items like murukku – a popular snack often scrutinized for adulteration – sending samples to non-notified labs risks invalidating results. The implication is clear: the test report from RAL Kozhikode cannot be considered as emanating from a notified laboratory 2025 Supreme(Bom) 469 2025 0 Supreme(Bom) 287 2015 0 Supreme(Bom) 1254.

Legal Implications for Food Sample Testing

Improper lab selection can derail prosecutions or compliance efforts. Under the FSS Act, samples must be analyzed in notified labs for reports to hold evidentiary value. In cases involving seized food, delays or procedural lapses further complicate matters.

For instance, related judgments emphasize timely analysis and proper lab referral. In one case, the Food Analyst must send reports within 14 days to the Designated Officer 2023 0 Supreme(Jhk) 907 2023 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 81240. Another highlights: the authorised officer of the Food Authority shall take its sample and send to the Food Analyst of notified laboratory for analysis who shall send the report within a period of five days

V.B.MURALEEDHARAN vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF FOODS SAFETY AND OTHERS - 2020 Supreme(Online)(KER) 9185

.

Non-compliance, such as using non-notified labs, mirrors issues in older Prevention of Food Adulteration Act cases, where Public Analyst reports were scrutinized for procedural adherence 1988 0 Supreme(Bom) 36 1982 0 Supreme(All) 179. Courts have quashed cases for failing to follow FSS Act procedures, like Section 42, underscoring the Act's overriding effect over IPC sections (e.g., 272, 273) from other sources on quashing.

Common Pitfalls in Sample Handling

In murukku-specific contexts, items like fried snacks (banana chips, murukku) have been litigated under sales tax or adulteration laws, reinforcing the need for precise testing 1993 0 Supreme(Ker) 218.

Broader Context from Case Law

Judicial precedents highlight the stakes. In a Kerala High Court ruling, prosecutions under FSS Act Sections 52/59/63 were quashed for procedural lapses, emphasizing Section 42 compliance from other sources. Similarly, under the predecessor Act, Public Analyst opinions were admissible only if procedures were followed, even without examining the analyst 1988 0 Supreme(Bom) 36.

For imported foods or seizures, samples go to notified labs with strict timelines

V.B.MURALEEDHARAN vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF FOODS SAFETY AND OTHERS - 2020 Supreme(Online)(KER) 9185

. NDPS cases analogously stress prompt FSL dispatch to preserve evidence 2017 0 Supreme(Del) 2830, a principle applicable to food safety.

Businesses dealing in snacks like murukku should verify lab status upfront. Tax cases clarify that such items aren't always bakery products, but safety testing remains paramount 1993 0 Supreme(Ker) 218.

Recommendations for Compliance

To avoid pitfalls:- Verify Lab Status: Check FSSAI's notified list for NABL-accredited and recognized labs.- Follow Procedures: Send samples to Designated Officers promptly; retain portions for re-analysis.- Document Everything: Use Form VI notices and maintain chains of custody 2022 0 Supreme(Telangana) 4.- Seek CFL if Needed: For disputes, refer to Central Food Laboratory under Section 42.

In one revision, courts directed samples to Central FSL for reliability

AMIR HUSSAIN BANIA vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR

.

Key Takeaways

  • RAL Kozhikode is not a notified laboratory under FSS Act based on available documents; use accredited alternatives for murukku or similar samples 2025 Supreme(Bom) 469 2025 0 Supreme(Bom) 287 2015 0 Supreme(Bom) 1254.
  • Compliance hinges on dual accreditation and recognition – transitional status isn't enough.
  • Procedural adherence prevents case dismissals, as seen in multiple rulings.

Stay vigilant with food safety regulations to safeguard your business. For tailored guidance, reach out to FSSAI-authorized experts.

References:1. 2025 Supreme(Bom) 469: Recognition requirements.2. 2025 0 Supreme(Bom) 287: Accreditation mandates.3. 2015 0 Supreme(Bom) 1254: Transitional provisions.

#FSSAct #FoodSafetyIndia #NotifiedLab
Chat Download
Chat Print
Chat R ALL
Landmark
Strategy
Argument
Risk
Chat Voice Bottom Icon
Chat Sent Bottom Icon
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top