Food Safety And Hygiene Offences
I. Overview: Food Safety and Hygiene Laws in India
The Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSS Act) is the central legislation governing food safety in India. It aims to ensure availability of safe and wholesome food for consumption, regulate food business operations, and impose penalties for offences relating to food adulteration, contamination, and unhygienic practices.
Key Provisions Related to Offences:
Section 2(1)(c): Defines ‘adulterated food’.
Section 18: Prohibition of sale of unsafe or adulterated food.
Section 23: Prohibition of sale of food not conforming to safety standards.
Section 24: Penalty for selling food that is unsafe or adulterated.
Section 26: Penalty for manufacture or sale of unsafe food.
Section 27: Punishment for food adulteration.
Section 48: Powers of food safety officers for search, seizure, and inspection.
II. Landmark Cases on Food Safety and Hygiene Offences
1. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Rajesh Gautam (2003) - Adulteration Case
Court: Supreme Court of India
Facts:
The accused was found selling milk adulterated with water and chemicals.
Issue:
Whether the accused’s act amounted to food adulteration under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (predecessor to FSS Act).
Judgment:
The Court held that selling adulterated food endangers public health and is a grave offence.
The strict liability principle applies: intent to adulterate is not necessary for conviction.
Conviction and penalty upheld to deter such offences.
Significance:
Established strict liability in food safety cases.
Strong message on public health importance over commercial interest.
2. Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (2014)
Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court
Facts:
Food inspector conducted raid and found unhygienic conditions in a restaurant kitchen.
Issue:
Whether the restaurant violated food safety laws by operating under unhygienic conditions.
Judgment:
The court held that hygiene standards are mandatory, and lack thereof constitutes an offence.
Emphasized that due diligence and regular checks by food business operators are required.
Directed suspension of license until compliance is ensured.
Significance:
Underlined that food business operators have a statutory duty to maintain hygiene.
Enforcement includes temporary closure till standards are met.
3. Food Inspector v. M/s Blue Cross Bakery (2015)
Court: Delhi High Court
Facts:
Bakery was prosecuted for using expired raw materials and selling sub-standard products.
Issue:
Whether use of expired raw materials and selling food below safety standards attracts penalties under FSS Act.
Judgment:
Court held that selling food which is unsafe or sub-standard violates Section 23.
Penalties and fine imposed; strict monitoring ordered.
Consumer safety takes precedence over business profits.
Significance:
Highlights importance of quality control in food processing.
Shows judicial inclination toward protecting consumer rights.
4. State of Maharashtra v. M/s Shree Krishna Food Products (2017)
Court: Bombay High Court
Facts:
The company was charged with mislabeling and failure to disclose ingredients properly.
Issue:
Whether mislabeling constitutes an offence under food safety law.
Judgment:
The Court ruled that mislabeling or false declaration is a serious offence under the Act.
It causes consumer deception and can lead to health risks.
The company was penalized and ordered to comply strictly with labeling norms.
Significance:
Emphasizes the role of accurate labeling in consumer protection.
Regulatory compliance on packaging is vital.
5. Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) v. M/s XYZ Restaurant (2019)
Court: National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
Facts:
Multiple complaints of food poisoning linked to the restaurant.
Issue:
Whether the restaurant can be held liable for food poisoning due to negligence in food hygiene.
Judgment:
The Commission found the restaurant negligent in maintaining hygiene and food safety.
Ordered compensation to affected consumers.
Directed the restaurant to improve sanitation and food handling.
Significance:
Reinforces consumer protection in food safety.
Negligence causing harm leads to civil liability and penalties.
6. Dr. L. Subramaniam v. State of Tamil Nadu (2018)
Court: Madras High Court
Facts:
A complaint was filed against a manufacturer for using harmful chemicals in food items.
Issue:
Whether manufacturing food containing harmful substances is punishable under the FSS Act.
Judgment:
Court upheld stringent punishments for manufacturers endangering public health.
Directed immediate recall and ban on the product.
Reinforced role of authorities in strict surveillance.
Significance:
Protects public health by penalizing harmful manufacturing practices.
Encourages proactive recall of unsafe products.
III. Summary of Judicial Approach
| Case | Legal Issue | Judicial Principle |
|---|---|---|
| State v. Rajesh Gautam | Adulteration | Strict liability, public health priority |
| Bachan Singh v. Punjab | Hygiene standards | Mandatory hygiene, suspension till compliance |
| Food Inspector v. Blue Cross | Use of expired materials | Strict enforcement of safety norms |
| Maharashtra v. Shree Krishna | Mislabeling | Accurate labeling is consumer right |
| FSSAI v. XYZ Restaurant | Food poisoning negligence | Compensation and mandatory hygiene |
| Dr. L. Subramaniam v. Tamil Nadu | Harmful manufacturing | Recall and penalties for public safety |
IV. Conclusion
Food safety and hygiene offences are taken very seriously due to the direct impact on public health. Courts have emphasized:
Strict liability for adulteration and unsafe food.
Mandatory hygiene and labeling compliance.
Consumer protection and compensation.
Proactive enforcement and regulatory oversight.
The Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and its judicial interpretation serve as strong deterrents against food-related offences, ensuring safer food for all.
RELATED Blog
0 comments