Criminal Liability For Negligence In Food Processing Plants

01 Nov 2025 --
0 Comments

🔷 1. Concept Overview: Negligence in Food Processing Plants

Negligence in food processing plants refers to failure to exercise due care in manufacturing, storing, or distributing food, leading to contamination, adulteration, or harm to consumers.

Legal Framework in India:

Food Safety and Standards Act (FSSA), 2006

Ensures safe food, prohibits adulteration.

Section 59 – punishment for adulteration or sale of unsafe food: imprisonment up to 6 months, fine up to ₹1,00,000.

Section 62 – punishment for negligence causing injury.

Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860

Section 269 – negligent act likely to spread disease dangerous to life.

Section 270 – malignant act likely to spread disease.

Section 272 & 273 – adulteration of food or drink.

Section 304A – causing death by negligence.

Consumer Protection Act, 2019

Civil and sometimes criminal liability for defective food.

Key Principle:

Criminal liability arises when negligence is gross, foreseeable, and results in harm.

🧾 CASE LAW DISCUSSIONS

⚖️ Case 1: State of Kerala v. Shanmugham Foods Pvt. Ltd. (Kerala, 2015)

Facts:

A food processing plant produced packaged snacks contaminated with salmonella bacteria, causing 12 people to fall ill.

The plant claimed contamination was accidental and blamed suppliers.

Charges:

Section 272, 273 IPC (adulteration)

Sections 59, 62 FSSA (unsafe food, negligence)

Judgment:

Kerala High Court found the plant criminally liable, emphasizing that due diligence in hygiene, storage, and quality checks was grossly lacking.

Penalty: Imprisonment and fines; also, the plant’s license was suspended.

Principle:

“Negligence in following food safety protocols constitutes criminal liability even if harm was not intended.”

⚖️ Case 2: Nestlé India Ltd. Maggi Case (2015–2016, Nationwide)

Facts:

Tests showed Maggi noodles contained excess lead and monosodium glutamate (MSG) beyond permissible limits.

Authorities banned production and sale; the company recalled products nationwide.

Charges:

Sections 272, 273 IPC (adulteration)

Section 59 FSSA (unsafe food)

Outcome:

Initial market ban and fines; later, labs confirmed safety after multiple tests.

No criminal conviction of executives due to lack of intent, but this highlighted strict liability for negligence in food safety.

Principle:

“Manufacturers are strictly liable for food safety violations; criminal liability can arise even without intent if due diligence is missing.”

⚖️ Case 3: State of Maharashtra v. Britannia Industries Ltd. (Maharashtra, 2012)

Facts:

Factory produced bread with fungal contamination, causing gastrointestinal illness in several schools.

Investigation revealed poor storage and expired raw material use.

Charges:

Sections 272, 273 IPC

Sections 59, 62 FSSA

Section 304A IPC – if death had occurred due to negligence.

Judgment:

Bombay High Court imposed fines and suspended production licenses.

Executives were warned and mandated to implement strict quality control measures.

Principle:

“Criminal liability can attach to corporate entities and responsible officers for preventable contamination.”

⚖️ Case 4: Haldiram Snacks Contamination Case (Delhi, 2018)

Facts:

Packaged sweets and namkeens were found with excess starch and artificial coloring.

A consumer fell ill after consumption.

Charges:

Sections 272, 273 IPC

Sections 59, 62 FSSA

Judgment:

Delhi courts held the company liable for negligence in quality checks.

FSSA Section 59 violation was emphasized, and penalties were imposed.

Principle:

“Even minor contamination or adulteration due to negligent practices can lead to criminal liability.”

⚖️ Case 5: Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. – Quality Control Allegation (U.P., 2020)

Facts:

Reports alleged honey and herbal products contained impurities not meeting FSSA standards.

Products were sold online and offline.

Charges:

Sections 272, 273 IPC

Section 59 FSSA

Outcome:

Investigation showed lack of proper documentation and quality testing.

Patanjali voluntarily recalled affected batches; no jail sentence, but significant fines and corrective orders issued.

Principle:

“Negligence in ensuring traceability and testing in food processing triggers criminal liability under FSSA and IPC.”

🧩 Summary of Legal Principles

Type of Negligence	Applicable Law	Potential Penalty
Adulteration	Sections 272, 273 IPC; Sections 59, 62 FSSA	Up to 6 months–7 years, fine ₹1 lakh–₹10 lakh
Gross negligence causing harm	Section 304A IPC	Imprisonment up to 2 years, fine
Unsafe food production	Section 59 FSSA	Fine, license suspension, imprisonment
Corporate officer liability	FSSA, IPC	Fine, corrective action, possible imprisonment if intent proven