Referral Food Laboratory’s Lack of NABL Accreditation at the Time of Analysis Rendered the Report Invalid – Issuance of Summons Without Proper Order Held Impermissible

The Hon’ble High Court quashed the criminal proceedings, holding that the Referral Food Laboratory, Ghaziabad, was not NABL accredited at the time of analysis, thereby rendering its report invalid. The court also observed that the issuance of summons without a formal order was impermissible. (Para-14, 15, 16, 20, 21, 22)

Acts and Sections Discussed:

• Constitution of India (COI)

• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 482

• Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSS Act) – Sections 3(p), 26(2)(i), 27(2)(c), 43, 47, 59, 66

• Food Safety and Standards (Food Product Standards and Additives) Regulations, 2011 – Regulation 2.12, 2.1.1

Subjects:
Food Safety – NABL Accreditation – Referral Food Laboratory – Issuance of Summons – Criminal Proceedings – Compliance of Mandatory Provisions

Case laws Referred:

• Lalankumar Singh and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1383

• M/s. Nestle India Limited v. The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India, 2015 SCC OnLine Bom 4713

Nature of the Litigation:
The application was filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) seeking quashing of Summary Criminal Case No.5325/2016.

Relief Sought:
The applicants prayed for the quashing of criminal proceedings initiated against them on the grounds of procedural lapses and non-compliance with mandatory provisions of the FSS Act.

Reason for Filing the Case:
The complaint was filed by the Food Safety Officer alleging that “Maggi Instant Noodles with Tastemaker” and “Baby and Me” Nutritional Supplement stocked at the Nestle India Limited’s Logistic Hub did not conform to prescribed safety standards.

Previous Decisions:
The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur, issued an order for process against the applicants on 17th April 2017.

Issues:
a) Whether the Referral Food Laboratory, Ghaziabad, was accredited by the National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration Laboratories (NABL) at the time of analysis. b) Whether the issuance of summons without a formal order was valid.

Submissions/Arguments:
a) The applicants contended that the report from the Referral Food Laboratory, Ghaziabad, was inadmissible due to lack of NABL accreditation at the time of analysis, which violated Sections 3(p) and 43 of the FSS Act. b) The applicants also argued that the issuance of summons without a proper order under Section 204 of the CrPC was legally unsustainable. c) The State argued that the product did not meet safety standards, as confirmed by the report from the Referral Food Laboratory.

Ratio:
The mandatory requirement for food testing under Section 43 of the FSS Act in an NABL-accredited and FSSAI-recognized laboratory was not met. The procedural lapses, including the absence of a formal order for the issuance of summons, vitiated the criminal proceedings.