AI Overview...
Section 3(1) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSS Act)
-
Definition of Food
The FSS Act, specifically Section 3(1)(j), defines 'food' broadly, including items like chewing tobacco, though courts have expressed reservations about classifying such products as food. Several cases (e.g., Uppara Veerendra VS State of Andhra Pradesh - Andhra Pradesh) highlight debates over whether certain products fall within this definition, with courts sometimes disagreeing on applicability.
References: Uppara Veerendra VS State of Andhra Pradesh - Andhra Pradesh, Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd VS State Of Kerala - Kerala, V. Nageswara Rao VS State Of Andhra Pradesh - Andhra Pradesh -
Provisions for Unsafe or Sub-Standard Food
The Act addresses the classification of food as unsafe or misbranded under Section 3(1)(zz)(v) and 3(1)(zf)(B)(ii). When samples are found unsafe or misbranded, the Act mandates action, but procedural lapses, such as delays or non-compliance with timelines, can invalidate prosecution (e.g., - Jammu and Kashmir, Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd VS State Of Kerala - Kerala).
References: Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd VS State Of Kerala - Kerala, - Jammu and Kashmir, Ali Mohammad Bhat VS UT of J&K - Crimes -
Sampling and Testing Procedures
Sections 42 and 26 of the FSS Act, along with associated regulations, govern the sampling, testing, and reporting processes. Courts have noted procedural lacunae, such as divergence in lab reports or failure to adhere to prescribed timelines, which can undermine prosecution (e.g., PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD vs STATE OF KERALA - Kerala, V.RAGUNATHAN vs STATE REP BY - Madras).
References: PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD vs STATE OF KERALA - Kerala, Ali Mohammad Bhat VS UT of J&K - Crimes, - Jammu and Kashmir -
Legal Proceedings and Limitations
Prosecution under the FSS Act requires strict adherence to timelines, especially concerning receipt and analysis of samples. Violations of these timelines, or procedural errors, can lead to quashing of complaints or prosecution proceedings (e.g., - Jammu and Kashmir, V.RAGUNATHAN vs STATE REP BY - Madras).
References: - Jammu and Kashmir, V.RAGUNATHAN vs STATE REP BY - Madras -
Remedies and Appeals
The Act provides for appeal rights and remedies against decisions or findings, but divergence in laboratory reports and procedural issues can impact the sustainability of prosecutions (e.g., PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD vs STATE OF KERALA - Kerala, PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD vs STATE OF KERALA - Kerala).
Analysis and Conclusion
Section 3(1) of the FSS Act provides a broad definition of 'food' encompassing various products, including some traditionally not considered food, such as chewing tobacco, though courts sometimes question this classification. The Act emphasizes strict procedural compliance, especially regarding sampling, testing, and timeliness, to ensure valid prosecution. Procedural lapses, divergence in laboratory reports, or delays often lead to the quashing of cases or invalidation of proceedings. Overall, effective enforcement relies on adherence to statutory timelines and procedural safeguards, with courts highlighting the importance of procedural integrity in prosecuting food safety violations under Section 3(1) of the FSS Act.
Search Results for "Section 3 1 Zf C 1 Fss Act"
2016 0 Supreme(Mad) 2192 • India - Madras
T.S.SIVAGNANAM
“Remark: 1) Date of Manufacture/Packing is not mentioned as required under Clause 2.2.2:9 of FSS (Packaging and Labelling) Regulations, 2011. ... ... 3. ... However, these issues being technical matters have to be considered by the competent authority under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. ... 8. ... However, taking note of the fact that the importer has other remedies available under the Act, the writ petition was disposed of with certain directions. ... 7.
2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 12641 • India - High Court of Madras
Honourable Mr Justice N. ANAND VENKATESH
Compliance - Prosecution - Food Safety and Standards Act - [Sections 3, 26, 42, 59] - The court highlighted the mandatory nature ... Sections 42(3) and 47(4), were not followed, which invalidated the prosecution proceedings. ... of compliance with specific provisions of the Food Safety Act related to prosecution recommendation timelines and second sample ... A complaint was thereafter filed on 15.06.2016 against the petitioners for the offence under Section ....
2025 Supreme(Online)(J&K) 834 • India - Jammu and Kashmir
(A) Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 - Sections 26(1)(2)(i)(ii), 59, 51, 3(1)(zz), 3(1)(zx), 42 - Cognizance taken beyond limitation ... however, limitation starts upon receipt of the analyst's report of sub-standard quality - Violation of mandatory timelines under Section ... (Paras 1-3, 9) ... ... Findings of Court: ... The complaint was quashed due to failure to adhere ... The petitioners have challenged t....
• India - Crimes
SANJAY DHAR
Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 – Section 26(1)(2)(i)(ii) read with Section 42 – Criminal Procedure ... – Provisions contained in Section 42 of FSS Act, which provide for timelines for taking certain actions by Food Analyst and Designated ... unsafe or sub-standard that commission of offence takes place and sale of such food article by accused is prohibited – Offence under FSS ... On the basis of aforesaid allegations, it has been claimed by the ....
2020 0 Supreme(AP) 348 • India - Andhra Pradesh
CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
Whether the products in question fall within the definition of 'food' under Section 3(1)(j) of the FSS Act. 3. ... It also found that the products in question did not fall within the definition of 'food' under Section 3(1)(j) of the FSS Act. ... Act, as only the Food Safety Officer under Section 42 of the FSS Act could initiat....
2024 0 Supreme(Ker) 988 • India - Kerala
P. V. KUNHIKRISHNAN
Food Safety - Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 - Sections 3(1)(zz)(v), 3(1)(zf)(B)(ii), 26, 27 - The ... is not permissible, highlighting a procedural lacuna in the Act. ... Fact of the Case: The petitioner, as the 4th accused, faced prosecution under the Food Safety and Standards Act ... Hence, the sample is unsafe and misbranded under section 3(1)(zz)(v) and 3(1#HL....
2021 0 Supreme(AP) 1000 • India - Andhra Pradesh
CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
Act - Held, Chewing tobacco is food under Section 3(1)(j) of FSS Act, I regret to express my inability to persuade myself to agree ... with the said view that chewing tobacco is a food within definition of Section 3(1)(j) of FSS Act - Therefore, when the facts of ... Excise Act - Sections 34(1)(i), 34(a) - Food Safety and Standards Ac....
2025 0 Supreme(Del) 556 • India - IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
Section 26 (2)(ii) read with Section 3(1)(zx) of FSS Act and for violation of Regulation No. 2.1.8 of Food Safety and Standards (Food Products Standards and Food Additives) Regulation, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as the “FSS Regulation”). Section 77 of the FSS Act, which was granted. Section 26 (1), a href="..
2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 31752 • India - High Court of Kerala
P. G. Ajithkumar, J
(A) Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 - Sections 3(1)(zz)(v), 3(1)(zf) ... ... (B)(ii), 26, 27(1) & (2)(c) - Food Safety and Standards ... Act concerning appeal rights against Referral Laboratory findings. ... of Court: ... The court found that the divergent reports rendered the prosecution unsustainable and highlighted a lacuna in the FSS ... and 3(1)(2f)(B(ii) & c(i) respectively of the #HL_....
2024 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 84370 • India - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Sections 3 (1) (zz) (v) and 3(1)(zf) (B) (ii) & (C) (i) respectively of the FSS Act. ... Hence, the sample is unsafe and misbranded under section 3(1)(zz)(v) and 3(1)(2f)(B(ii)&c(i) respectively of FSS Act, 2006.” Section 3 (1) (zz) (v) of Food Safety and Standards Act 2006....
Filter by Legal Phrase
