Back
Quashes Maggi Prosecution Against Nestlé Citing Unaccredited Laboratory and Defective Sanction
The has quashed all criminal proceedings against Nestlé India Limited in the long-running case concerning MAGGI 2-Minute Noodles, delivering a significant ruling on the for food testing laboratories under the . Justice Alok Mahra, sitting singly, allowed a batch of twelve petitions filed under , holding that the prosecution was founded on a legally unsustainable food analyst's report and suffered from multiple .
The 2015 MAGGI Controversy and the Road to Court
In , food safety officials in Uttarakhand collected samples of MAGGI 2-Minute Noodles from a local vendor and forwarded them to the , for analysis. The laboratory's report, issued on , declared the product "" and "," alleging contravention of provisions relating to food quality under the FSS Act. Based on this report, was granted, and a complaint was instituted on , before the , naming the vendor and Nestlé India Limited as accused parties.
This local prosecution was part of a nationwide regulatory crackdown that year. In , the ordered a nationwide withdrawal and recall of all MAGGI Noodles variants, citing concerns over excess lead content and the alleged presence of monosodium glutamate (MSG). Nestlé voluntarily withdrew the product from the market as a precautionary measure and mounted legal challenges across multiple jurisdictions.
The Foundation Crumbles: An Unaccredited Laboratory
The primary contention raised by Nestlé was that the , lacked the to conduct analysis under the FSS Act. Section 3(1)(p) of the Act defines a "Food Laboratory" as one that must fulfill twin requirements: accreditation by the and notification by the FSSAI under Section 43. The applicants argued that at the relevant time in 2015, the Rudrapur laboratory satisfied neither condition.
Justice Mahra accepted this argument, noting that
"there is no material on record to establish that the
was NABL accredited and duly notified under Section 43 of the FSS Act at the relevant time when the impugned analysis was conducted."
The Court emphasized that
"unless both conditions stand satisfied, the laboratory cannot legally undertake analysis under the Act."
This finding echoed the reasoning of the , which had set aside similar orders against Nestlé in August 2015 and directed fresh testing through duly accredited laboratories. Subsequent testing through three accredited referral laboratories, including the , Mysore, confirmed that lead levels in MAGGI Noodles were within permissible limits. The later directed that CFTRI's reports would form the basis for adjudication before the , which ultimately dismissed the consumer complaint against Nestlé.
Stacking Infirmities: Sanction, Limitation, and
Beyond the defective laboratory report, the High Court identified three additional legal infirmities that independently vitiated the prosecution.
First, the Court found that the complaints failed to implead the company in accordance with Section 66 of the FSS Act. Relying on the Supreme Court's decisions in
and
, Justice Mahra held that prosecution of officers or nominees without
the company itself as an accused is
.
"The liability of officers is therefore vicarious and contingent upon prosecution of the company itself,"
the Court observed.
Second, the Court held that was taken beyond the prescribed under Section 77 of the FSS Act. The samples were collected in May-, yet was taken after the expiry of the statutory period without any recorded extension by the Commissioner of Food Safety.
Third, the was found to be defective. Section 42 of the FSS Act mandates that prosecution be sanctioned by the Commissioner of Food Safety. However, the sanction was granted by the Chief Medical Officer, who was not shown to be duly authorized. The Court applied the principle from
that
"where a statute prescribes a particular mode for institution of prosecution, the same must be strictly complied with and no further sub-delegation is permissible unless expressly authorised by statute."
Key Observations from the Bench
The Court made several pointed observations that underscored its decision:
"Continuation of criminal prosecution against the applicants on the basis of reports issued by laboratories lacking cannot be sustained."
"Once the very foundation of the prosecution, namely the Food Analyst's report, is rendered legally unsustainable, continuation of criminal proceedings on the basis thereof would amount to ."
"The complaints do not satisfy the mandatory governing prosecution of companies and their nominees. Consequently, continuation of proceedings against the applicants alone is legally impermissible."
"Continuation of the impugned proceedings despite the aforesaid would serve no useful purpose and would merely subject the applicants to unnecessary harassment and protracted criminal trial, which is otherwise bound to fail."
The MSG Question: A Red Herring
The Court also addressed the allegation concerning MSG. Nestlé argued that glutamates occur naturally in many food substances and that no scientific analytical method exists to distinguish between naturally occurring glutamates and artificially added MSG. The applicants placed reliance on an FSSAI clarification dated , directing Commissioners of Food Safety not to initiate prosecution merely on detection of glutamate in noodle products unless it was independently established that MSG had been deliberately added during manufacture. An inspection conducted by the at Nestlé's Pantnagar facility on , confirmed that MSG was not being added during the manufacturing process.
Disposition
All twelve applications under Section 482 CrPC were allowed. The Court quashed the complaint cases, orders, summoning orders, and all consequential proceedings initiated against the applicants under Sections 52 and 59 of the FSS Act, including Complaint No. 2217 of 2016 pending before the . The applicants were discharged from all proceedings.
The judgment reinforces the principle that food safety prosecutions must rest on a solid statutory foundation, with strict compliance with accreditation and notification requirements for testing laboratories. It also serves as a reminder that criminal proceedings founded on legally unsustainable reports constitute an abuse of process, warranting intervention under the of the High Court.
