Delhi High Court sets aside food-safety summons for failure to hear accused before taking cognizance under BNSS

The petitioners sought to set aside a complaint under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, and the summoning order dated 22 November 2024.

The complaint concerned a sample of pre-packed kabuli chana stored at a dark store operated by petitioner no. 2; the petitioners included the platform operator, product-related companies and their nominees, and the dark-store manager.

They argued, among other things, that the product was sealed and factory-packed and that the Magistrate had issued summons without first giving them an opportunity to be heard under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

The High Court considered the petition on the legal question without a formal reply.

Whether Section 223 of the BNSS required the Magistrate to give the accused an opportunity of being heard before taking cognizance of the complaint

Whether failure to provide that opportunity rendered the summoning order unsustainable

The first proviso to Section 223(1) of the BNSS provides that a Magistrate shall not take cognizance of an offence on complaint without giving the accused an opportunity of being heard.

In Parvinder Singh v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 903, the Supreme Court held that Section 223 applies where cognizance is taken after the BNSS came into force, even if the complaint was filed earlier, and that non-compliance with the hearing requirement vitiates the order taking cognizance.

The Court also noted Atiqur Rahaman & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Anr., 2025 SCC OnLine All 4766, in which the Allahabad High Court set aside proceedings where the accused had not been put on notice before cognizance.

The summoning order was passed on 22 November 2024, after the BNSS came into force, and the petitioners had not been given notice or an opportunity to be heard before cognizance was taken.

Applying Parvinder Singh, the Court treated that omission as non-compliance with the mandatory requirement of Section 223, which invalidated the order.

The Court did not decide the petitioners’ other grounds, including their submissions concerning the sealed, factory-packed product.

The matter was remanded to the Magistrate for a fresh order after giving the accused an opportunity to be heard; the petitioners’ other rights and contentions were left open.