Court says delayed notice and non-supply of the Food Analyst’s report deprived Britannia of statutory safeguards under food-safety law
MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against Britannia Dairy Pvt Ltd in a case concerning allegations that its Britannia Cheese Cubes – Sour Cream and Onion were unsafe, holding that the company was denied key statutory safeguards under the Food Safety and Standards Act and Rules.
Justice Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale allowed Britannia’s application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), concluding that continuation of the prosecution was untenable because the company was deprived of opportunities provided under food-safety law.
Cheese sample collected in July 2013
The case originated from the purchase of four packets of Britannia Cheese Cubes by a Food Safety Officer from a Big Bazaar outlet at R City Mall, Ghatkopar, Mumbai, on July 30, 2013.
The product had been packed on February 12, 2013, with a stated shelf life of nine months, making November 12, 2013 its expiry date.
A Food Analyst’s report dated August 14, 2013, allegedly found the sample to be infested with fungus and classified it as unsafe under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.
However, Britannia received the relevant notice only on May 17, 2014 — about six months after the product’s expiry.
Court highlights loss of statutory testing opportunity
The High Court held that the delay had significant consequences.
Under Rule 2.4.5(1) of the Food Safety and Standards Rules, 2011, the food business operator is entitled to have the fourth part of the sample analysed at an NABL-accredited or FSSAI-notified laboratory.
Because the notice was issued after the product’s shelf life had ended, Britannia effectively lost the opportunity to exercise this statutory safeguard.
The court treated the requirement as mandatory, noting that the Rules use the word “shall”.
Food Analyst’s report was also not supplied
Britannia had also sought a copy of the Food Analyst’s report after receiving the notice. According to the court, the report was not supplied to the company.
This was significant because Section 46(4) of the Food Safety and Standards Act provides a mechanism for challenging a Food Analyst’s report before the Designated Officer, while Rule 2.4.6 provides for referral to a referral food laboratory.
Also Read: NDRI Develops Technology to Extend Paneer Shelf Life to 20–21 Days
The High Court found that withholding the report further deprived Britannia of its statutory opportunity to challenge the analytical findings.
The court also noted that the complaint did not mention the May 17, 2014 notice, even though the prosecution relied upon the Food Testing Laboratory’s report without furnishing it to Britannia.
Magistrate’s order also came under scrutiny
The High Court further criticised the order through which the magistrate had issued process against the accused, describing it as a “rubber stamp order” that did not demonstrate adequate application of mind.
The court noted that two of the accused were based in Baramati, Pune, outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 46th Court, Mazgaon, Mumbai.
In such circumstances, the court held that Section 202 of the CrPC required an inquiry before process could be issued.
Licensing allegation not the basis of the case
The complaint included provisions relating to unsafe food, including Section 59 of the Food Safety and Standards Act.
The High Court also observed that the alleged licensing violation under Sections 31(1) and 63 was not the basis of the complaint against Britannia.
What the ruling means for food-safety enforcement
The ruling does not amount to a finding that the cheese was safe. Instead, the High Court’s decision focused on whether the prosecution followed the statutory procedure and preserved the accused’s legal safeguards.
The case highlights an important principle for food-safety enforcement: proper sampling and laboratory analysis alone are not sufficient; the statutory procedure for communicating reports and preserving the food business operator’s rights must also be followed.
For food manufacturers, the ruling underlines the importance of maintaining traceability, sample-retention systems and regulatory documentation.
For enforcement authorities, it reinforces the need to ensure that notices, laboratory reports and opportunities for re-analysis are provided within the legally prescribed framework.
Join Our “Dairy & Food Jobs Updates” WhatsApp group
Follow the Agri Jobs Updates channel on WhatsApp:
Disclaimer
I do my best to share reliable and well-researched insights but occasional errors or omissions may slip through. Please view all content as informational.
Stay informed on all the latest news updates
All Agriculture Books Free Download
All Dairy Technology Books Free Download
All Agricultural Engineering Books Free download
All Horticulture Books Free Download
All Fisheries Science Books Free Download
For Daily Update follow us at:
Facebook Telegram Whatsapp Instagram YouTube
The contents are provided free for noncommercial purpose such as teaching, training, research, extension and self learning.
If you are facing any Problem than fill form Contact Us
If you want share any article related Agriculture with us than send at info@agrimoon.com with your contact detail.
