Madras HC Refuses To Quash ‘Cool Lip’ Seller’s Food-Safety Case, Says Nicotine-Containing Tobacco Is Food

The petitioner, sole proprietor of M/s. Poornima Agency and a licensed Food Business Operator, sought to quash STC No. 1125 of 2018, in which the Judicial Magistrate, Sathyamangalam, had taken cognizance of offences under Sections 58 and 59(1) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (“FSS Act”).

The prosecution arose from an inspection on 26 June 2018, when officials sampled packets of “Cool Lip” (tobacco).

The Food Analyst’s report stated that the sample contained nicotine and was unsafe; the petitioner was subsequently issued a show-cause notice and a complaint was filed.

The petitioner argued that the product was tobacco governed by the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003 (“COTPA”), and that the Commissioner’s notification prohibiting tobacco products exceeded the Commissioner’s authority.

He relied on a Division Bench judgment quashing successive notifications, though the Supreme Court had stayed the relevant portion of that judgment.

Section 3(1)(j) of the FSS Act defines “food”; Section 3(1)(zz) addresses “unsafe food”; and Section 26(2)(iv) places responsibility on a Food Business Operator not to manufacture, store, sell or distribute food that is unsafe.

Regulation 2.3.4 of the Food Safety and Standards (Prohibition and Restrictions on Sales) Regulations, 2011 prohibits the use of tobacco or nicotine as an ingredient in food products.

The Court relied on prior Division Bench decisions holding that tobacco, with or without additives, may fall within the statutory definition of food, while noting that the Supreme Court had stayed the Division Bench’s conclusion that successive notifications exceeded the Commissioner’s powers.

It also referred to the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India’s order dated 27 March 2026 and the Tamil Nadu Commissioner’s notification dated 23 May 2026 concerning the prohibition of tobacco and nicotine as ingredients in food.

Sections 58 and 59(1) prescribe penalties for contraventions and unsafe food, respectively.

The Court treated the sampled product as processed tobacco intended for human consumption and therefore within the definition of “food” in Section 3(1)(j).

The analyst’s report recorded nicotine at 0.36%; the Court considered this sufficient, at this stage, to support the allegation that the product was unsafe and contained an ingredient prohibited by Regulation 2.3.4.

It held that the reference to Regulation 2.12 did not take the product outside the FSS Act and that the petitioner, as the Food Business Operator, remained responsible for the safety of the product.

The Court also noted that the Supreme Court’s stay applied to the Division Bench’s ruling on the Commissioner’s authority and relied on the 2026 FSSAI order and Tamil Nadu notification in declining to quash the prosecution.

It directed the Judicial Magistrate, Sathyamangalam, to complete the trial within three months of receiving a copy of the order; the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.