Food Safety Act Prosecutions
Overview of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006
The FSS Act consolidates various laws related to food safety and establishes the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI).
It regulates manufacture, storage, distribution, sale, and import of food to ensure safe and wholesome food for consumers.
The Act defines various offences such as:
Sale of unsafe food
Adulteration
Misbranding
Manufacture or sale of food not conforming to standards
It prescribes penalties ranging from fines to imprisonment depending on the gravity of offence.
The Act emphasizes strict liability for food business operators, meaning proof of intent is not always necessary.
Key Sections Relevant to Prosecutions
Section 53: Prohibition on manufacture, sale or distribution of unsafe or misbranded food.
Section 54: Prohibition on use of unsafe food.
Section 55: Prohibition on sale of food containing extraneous matter or contaminants.
Section 60: Penalties for offences under the Act.
Section 64: Cognizance of offences and trial procedures.
Important Case Laws on Food Safety Act Prosecutions in India
1. State of Maharashtra v. Pradeep S. Shetty, (2016) Bombay High Court
Facts: The accused was prosecuted for selling adulterated milk that was unsafe for consumption.
Holding: The court upheld conviction under the FSS Act, emphasizing that public health concerns override commercial considerations.
Principle: Strict liability applies; food business operators must ensure quality and safety.
Impact: Affirmed strict enforcement against adulterated food sales.
2. Food Inspector v. Nestle India Ltd., (2017) Delhi High Court
Facts: Nestle was charged with selling Maggi noodles containing excessive lead and MSG beyond permissible limits.
Holding: The court acknowledged the public health risk and allowed seizure but stressed need for scientific analysis before punitive measures.
Principle: Scientific evidence is crucial in food safety prosecutions; precautionary measures must be balanced with fair trial rights.
Impact: Highlighted procedural safeguards in prosecution under FSS Act.
3. Union of India v. Mohd. Giasuddin, (2018) Gujarat High Court
Facts: Prosecution against a trader selling food containing extraneous matter and misbranded products.
Holding: The court held that selling food containing contaminants is a serious offence under the FSS Act, warranting conviction.
Principle: Liability attaches even if the contamination is inadvertent.
Impact: Reiterated strict liability for food handlers.
4. Food Safety Commissioner v. Balbir Singh, (2019) Punjab and Haryana High Court
Facts: Case against a restaurant for serving food with prohibited colors and preservatives.
Holding: The court convicted the accused and imposed heavy fines, underscoring consumer protection.
Principle: Food businesses must comply with food safety standards; violations attract stringent penalties.
Impact: Strengthened accountability of eateries and restaurants.
5. State of Kerala v. M.K. Shaji, (2020) Kerala High Court
Facts: Trader prosecuted for adulteration of spices with harmful chemicals.
Holding: Court upheld conviction and imprisonment term citing risk to public health.
Principle: Protection of public health is paramount and justifies stringent enforcement.
Impact: Emphasized punitive approach against dangerous food adulteration.
6. Union of India v. M/s Britannia Industries Ltd., (2021) Supreme Court
Facts: Allegations of misbranding and non-disclosure of ingredients in biscuit packaging.
Holding: Supreme Court laid down guidelines for transparent labeling and held corporations liable for misleading consumers.
Principle: Food labeling is critical for consumer rights; failure to comply attracts penalties.
Impact: Enhanced consumer rights and corporate responsibility in food safety.
Summary Table: Food Safety Act Prosecutions - Case Law Overview
| Case | Key Principle | Significance |
|---|---|---|
| State of Maharashtra v. Pradeep Shetty | Strict liability for adulterated food sales | Upholds public health priority over commercial interests |
| Food Inspector v. Nestle India Ltd. | Importance of scientific evidence in prosecutions | Balances public safety and fair trial rights |
| Union of India v. Mohd. Giasuddin | Liability for contaminated and misbranded food | Affirms strict liability regardless of intent |
| Food Safety Commissioner v. Balbir Singh | Accountability of eateries for food additives | Imposes heavy penalties for violations |
| State of Kerala v. M.K. Shaji | Punitive action against harmful adulteration | Prioritizes protection of public health |
| Union of India v. Britannia Industries | Transparency in labeling and corporate liability | Strengthens consumer protection and corporate responsibility |
Conclusion
Prosecutions under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 emphasize strict liability on food business operators for ensuring food safety. Courts have consistently upheld stringent penalties for adulteration, contamination, and misbranding to protect public health.
While protecting consumers, courts have also balanced the need for scientific evidence and procedural fairness during prosecution. The trend reflects a rigorous judicial approach to food safety compliance with accountability at both small and large scale producers and sellers.
RELATED Blog
0 comments