PRIME LEGAL | Bombay High Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings Against Britannia Dairy in Unsafe Cheese Cubes Case

CASE NAME: Britannia Dairy Private Limited vs The State of Maharashtra & Ors

CASE NUMBER: Criminal Application No. 842 of 2017

COURT: High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction

DATE: 11 September 2026

QUORUM: Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale, J.

FACTS

The manufacturer of Britannia Cheese Cubes was Britannia Dairy Private Limited. On 30 July 2013, the Food Safety Officer took samples from ‘Big Bazaar’ store for analysis. In the report issued by Food Analyst on 14 August 2013, the sample was found to be fungus-infested and unsafe. The shelf life of the product ended on 12 November 2013. Nevertheless, the Applicant received a notice regarding the said FSS Rules on 17 May 2014, about six months after the expiry of the shelf life of the product, and also did not receive a report of the Food Analyst.

The criminal complaint was made on 28 July 2014 and a process was initiated against the Applicant. The Applicant made an application to the High Court under Section 482 CrPC (Section 528, BNSS, 2023) claiming that delay had deprived it of its statutory right to contest the sample through re-analysis as well as appeal against the report of Food Analyst. The Applicant also claimed that the order of the Magistrate was a mechanical order, and no enquiry as per Section 202 CrPC (Section 225, BNSS, 2023) was made although there were some accused beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate.

ISSUES

1. Whether the Applicant was entitled to notice and an opportunity for re-analysis of the food sample under the FSS Rules. 
2. Whether delayed notice, after expiry of the product’s shelf life, deprived the Applicant of its statutory rights. 
3. Whether non-supply of the Food Analyst’s report deprived the Applicant of its right of appeal. 
4. Whether the Magistrate’s order issuing process showed proper application of mind. 
5. Whether inquiry under Section 202 CrPC( Section 225 BNSS) was mandatory where 

the accused persons resided outside the Magistrate’s jurisdiction.

1. Whether continuation of the proceedings amounted to abuse of process warranting quashing under Section 482 CrPC (Section 528 BNSS).

LEGAL PROVISIONS

Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006

1. Section 3(1)(j) – Defines “food”; the cheese product fell within this definition. 
2. Section 3(1)(zz)(iii) & (x) – Defines circumstances in which food is considered unsafe; the Food Analyst relied on these provisions. 
3. Section 27 – Provides liability of manufacturers, distributors, sellers etc. for food that contravenes the Act/Rules. 
4. Section 31(1) – Requires a Food Business Operator to obtain the requisite licence for the premises where food business is carried on. 
5. Section 46(4) – Provides a right to appeal against the Food Analyst’s report before the Designated Officer. 
6. Section 47 – Prescribes the procedure for taking, dividing, sealing and analysing food samples. 
7. Section 59 – Provides punishment for offences relating to unsafe food. 
8. Section 66 – Deals with offences by companies and liability of persons in charge. 

Food Safety and Standards Rules, 2011

1. Rule 2.4.1(4) – Requires notice to the manufacturer/distributor/supplier or other person whose details are disclosed when a sample is taken. 
2. Rule 2.4.2 – Prescribes the procedure/time requirements relating to dispatch of samples to the Food Analyst. 
3. Rule 2.4.5(1) – Gives the Food Business Operator/person identified on the label the opportunity to have the fourth part of the sample tested by an NABL-accredited/FSSAI-notified laboratory. 
4. Rule 2.4.6 – Provides the procedure for appeal against the Food Analyst’s report and referral to the referral laboratory; the referral laboratory’s report is final. 
5. Rule 2.5.1 – Deals with nomination of a responsible person by a licensed food business operator. 

The Court held that Rules 2.4.1(4) and 2.4.5 were mandatory, and the Applicant’s rights were defeated because notice came after expiry of the product’s shelf life. 

Criminal Procedure

1. Section 202, CrPC – Requires inquiry/investigation before issuance of process in cases covered by the provision, including where the accused resides beyond the Magistrate’s territorial jurisdiction. The Court held this requirement mandatory in the present case. ( Section 225, BNSS, 2023)
2. Section 482, CrPC – Inherent power of High Court to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice. (Section 528, BNSS, 2023)

ARGUMENTS

APPELLANT:

According to the Applicant, the notice had been given almost six months past the shelf life of the product, hence making it impossible for the right of re-testing as per Rule 2.4.5 to be exercised. Secondly, the applicant argued that the report by the Food Analyst had not been provided, making it impossible for the right of appeal under Section 46(4) to be exercised. The Applicant further questioned the Magistrate’s order as being a mere rubber stamp and that Section 202 CrPC (Section 225, BNSS, 2023) inquiry was necessary because some accused resided outside the jurisdiction.

RESPONDENTS:

It was the position of the Respondents that the Applicant was the marketer of hazardous food products who conducted business from an unauthorized place of operation. According to the Respondents, the sampling process was in accordance with Section 47 of the FSS Act while no provision was made for forwarding the original report of the Food Analyst to the Applicant. Sections 27 and 66 of the FSS Act were cited to prove liability of the marketer/company and its officials.

ANALYSIS

As per the decision, the Applicant being the marketer of the drug whose particulars were mentioned on the label was entitled to receive notice for the independent analysis of the fourth portion of the sample as per his statutory right. However, the notice was not issued until 17 May 2014, which is beyond the expiration of shelf life of the drug on 12 November 2013 and thus denied the Applicant his right under Rule 2.4.5.

The Court went on to say that the non-supply of the Food Analyst’s report deprived the Applicant of his statutory right to appeal under Section 46(4) of the rule 2.4.6. The Court also found the process of issuance of the order to be a “rubber stamp” order and held Section 202 CrPC inquiry to be essential as the accused reside out of the jurisdiction of the Magistrate.

JUDGMENT

This petition was allowed by the Bombay High Court, setting aside the criminal proceeding. The Court ruled that there were violations of mandatory procedures as per the FSS Act and Rules. Delay in giving the notice, lack of provision of laboratory report, and hence denial of rights to the Applicant rendered prosecution impossible and abuse of Court procedure. Therefore, inherent powers as per Section 482 CrPC/Section 528 BNSS were used.

CONCLUSION

In this case, there is the clear need for food safety officials to adhere to the mandatory requirements set. Even in situations where the food is found to be unsafe, the person charged with the offense is still entitled to his right of testing the sample again through the Food Analyst’s Report. Failure to follow these safeguards can justify quashing of criminal proceedings as an abuse of process.

 

“PRIME LEGAL is a National Award-winning law firm with over two decades of experience across diverse legal sectors. We are dedicated to setting the standard for legal excellence in civil, criminal, and family law.”

WRITTEN BY: KHWAISH SACHDEVA