Liability for Misbranded Raw Materials Under Section 26(2) Extends to Food Establishments Utilizing Them

In brief

The question

1. Whether the analysis conducted by the State Food Testing Laboratory at Raipur was legally valid under the Food Safety and Standards (Laboratory and Sample Analysis) Regulations, 2011

The court held

The court answered both issues in the affirmative, holding that the Raipur laboratory had jurisdiction

It also directed

the appellant is liable for storing misbranded raw materials for food preparation

The High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of the Sessions Court and the imposition of the ₹1,00,000 penalty

01Facts

The appellant, proprietor of "Mahesh Sweets," was inspected by a Food Safety Officer on October 15, 2011. A 50kg bag of "Ararot" (arrowroot) was sampled and sent to the State Food Testing Laboratory, Raipur

p. 2

The analyst’s report found the sample to be "Maize Starch" rather than "Ararot," classifying it as "misbranded" under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (the Act)

p. 2

The Adjudicating Officer imposed a penalty of ₹1,00,000 under Section 52 for violation of Section 26(2) on May 22, 2012

p. 3

The Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, dismissed the appellant's challenge on February 8, 2019

p. 2

The appellant then preferred this criminal appeal, arguing that as a sweet-maker using raw materials, he is not liable for misbranding by the original manufacturer, and that the sample should have been sent to a Central Food Laboratory

pp. 3-4

02Issues

i.1. Whether the analysis conducted by the State Food Testing Laboratory at Raipur was legally valid under the Food Safety and Standards (Laboratory and Sample Analysis) Regulations, 2011

pp. 4-5

ii.2. Whether the appellant can be held liable for "misbranding" under Section 26(2) of the Act when the product was within quality standards and he was not the manufacturer

pp. 5-6

03Law Applied

Section 26(2) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, which mandates that no person shall manufacture, store, sell, or distribute any food article that is misbranded

pp. 5-6

Section 3(2)(A)(ii) to define "misbranded" items where the article is an imitation or substitute for another food under the name of which it is sold

p. 5

Regulation 2.1.1 of the Food Safety and Standards (Laboratory and Sample Analysis) Regulations, 2011, which permits analysis by Food Analysts of laboratories notified by the Food Authority having jurisdiction over the area

pp. 4-5

Provisions in the judgment · 5 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 Section 3 Section 26 Section 43 Section 52 Section 76

04Reasoning

The court rejected the jurisdictional challenge, noting that while the 2011 Regulations notify Central Laboratories for imports, Regulation 2.1.1 allows State Food Analysts to conduct analysis within their jurisdiction; here, the Raipur analyst was duly appointed for Chhattisgarh

pp. 4-5

Regarding the merits, the court held that "misbranding" is a distinct statutory violation separate from food safety or quality; because the bag was labeled "Ararot" but contained "Maize Starch," it met the legal definition of misbranded regardless of its "within norms" quality

p. 5

Furthermore, the court clarified that Section 26(2) imposes a non-delegable duty on any person dealing with food—including those storing it for use in preparation—to ensure compliance, thereby rejecting the defense that only the manufacturer could be held liable

pp. 5-6