Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a proprietor of a wholesale distributing agency in APMC Yard, Vijayapura, distributed various products including Sunfeast Yippee! Noodles manufactured by ITC Limited. On 11.06.2015, the Food Safety Inspector picked up a sample of Sunfeast Yippee! Noodles Classic Masala from the petitioner's premises and sent it to the Food Analyst, Belgaum. The Food Analyst's report dated 23.06.2015 stated that the sample conformed to standards but was misbranded as per Rule 2.2.1(3) of the Food Safety and Standards (Packaging and Labelling) Regulations, 2011. However, the report also explicitly noted that the test for lead and flavour enhancers (MSG) could not be performed due to non-availability of facility. Despite this, the Food Analyst opined that the product was misbranded. The product label declared 'No added MSG'. The petitioner contended that without testing for MSG, the misbranding conclusion was illegal and that no laboratory in Karnataka had the facility to test for MSG. The petitioner was issued a notice on 10.08.2015 by the Additional District Magistrate cum Adjudicating Authority, Vijayapura, initiating proceedings under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. Although an opportunity for retesting was given on 11.08.2015, it was offered only after the misbranding conclusion. The petitioner was also not provided the right to appeal the Food Analyst's report before the Designated Officer as required under Section 46(4) of the Act and Rule 4.2 of the Rules. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the writ petition seeking quashing of the order dated 25.11.2015 passed by the Adjudicating Authority. The respondents argued that the action was valid based on the Food Analyst's report and the opportunity for retest. The court, after examining the report and the provisions, found that the Food Analyst's own report acknowledged the inability to test for MSG, rendering the misbranding opinion inconclusive. Following a co-ordinate bench decision in WP No.207484/2015 and the dictum in ITC Ltd. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the court held that criminal prosecution cannot be sustained on such an inconclusive report. The absence of MSG testing facility meant the allegation of misbranding could not be confirmed, and the proceedings amounted to abuse of process. The High Court allowed the petition and quashed the adjudication order dated 25.11.2015 in C.C. No. 307/037/225/2015-16, ruling in favour of the petitioner.
Headnote
A) Food Safety - Misbranding - Necessity of Confirmatory Test for MSG - Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, Sections 46, 52, 89; Food Safety and Standards (Packaging and Labelling) Regulations, 2011, Regulation 2.2.1(3); Food Safety and Standards (Food Products and Food Additives) Regulations, 2011, Regulation 2.12 - The Food Analyst reported the sample as misbranded for non-compliance with labelling regulations but simultaneously noted that the test for lead and flavour enhancers (MSG) could not be performed due to non-availability of facility. The product label declared 'No added MSG'. In absence of a test to verify the presence of MSG, the allegation of misbranding was based on an inconclusive and tentative report. The court held that the report itself being inconclusive, the criminal prosecution launched on the basis of such a report is per se illegal and amounted to abuse of process, warranting quashing of proceedings. (Paras 3, 4, 5, 9, 12). B) Food Safety - Right to Fair Procedure - Section 46(4) FSS Act and Rule 4.2 FSS Rules - The petitioner was not provided the right to appeal the Food Analyst's report before the Designated Officer as mandated. The opportunity to retest was given only after the misbranding conclusion, which violated statutory safeguards. The court observed that this procedural infirmity further vitiated the proceedings. (Paras 6, 7, 9, 11). C) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of Proceedings - High Court’s Power under Article 226 and Section 482 CrPC - Following the precedent in ITC Ltd. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and other decisions, where on similar facts where laboratory lacked MSG testing facility, proceedings were quashed. The court held that when the very basis of prosecution is an inconclusive report, continuation would be abuse of process, and relied on the co-ordinate bench decision in WP No.207484/2015. (Paras 11, 12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether criminal prosecution for misbranding under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 can be sustained when the Food Analyst's report is inconclusive as the laboratory lacked the facility to test for Mono Sodium Glutamate (MSG) and the product label declared 'No added MSG'.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The order dated 25.11.2015 passed in C.C. No. 307/037/225/2015-16 by the Additional District Magistrate cum Adjudicating Authority, Vijayapura, is quashed.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Criminal prosecution cannot be sustained on an inconclusive food analyst report lacking testing for MSG
- misbranding finding illegal without proper testing facility
- right to fair procedure under FSSA
- quashing proceedings when essential test not done
- Section 46(4) FSSA right to appeal not provided
- court can quash under Article 226/Section 482 CrPC
