Madras HC Upholds Bakery Owner’s Acquittal In Tea Powder Case Over Unlabelled Sample And Analysis Beyond 14 Days

In brief

The question

1. Whether the sample and the resulting analysis report could support a finding of contravention when the sample packet lacked the particulars required by the Rules and the analysis was not completed within the statutory period.

The court held

The Court held that the prosecution had not proved the charge beyond reasonable doubt and that the trial court’s acquittal was neither infirm nor perverse.

It also directed

The State’s appeal was dismissed, leaving the acquittal in place.

01Facts

Following a WhatsApp complaint, the Food Safety Officer inspected the respondent’s bakery on 2 September 2017 and sampled tea powder intended for use in preparing tea.

p. 2

The complaint alleged that the tea powder was unsafe, and the respondent was prosecuted under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.

p. 2

The trial court acquitted him, finding that the sampling and analysis requirements had not been complied with and noting evidence that his annual turnover was ₹10 lakhs, below the then-applicable ₹12-lakh threshold.

pp. 3–4

The State appealed against the acquittal.

p. 4

02Issues

i.1. Whether the sample and the resulting analysis report could support a finding of contravention when the sample packet lacked the particulars required by the Rules and the analysis was not completed within the statutory period.

pp. 9–10

ii.2. Whether the respondent’s turnover brought him within the petty food manufacturer exemption from the licensing requirement applicable at the time of the alleged offence.

pp. 11–13

iii.3. Whether the trial court’s acquittal disclosed an infirmity or perversity warranting appellate interference.

p. 14

03Law Applied

Section 38 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 empowers a Food Safety Officer to take samples, while Rule 2.4 of the Food Safety and Standards Rules, 2011 prescribes requirements for containers, labelling, sealing, and dispatch of samples.

pp. 6–9

Section 42(2) requires the Food Analyst to analyse the sample and send the report within fourteen days of receiving it.

p. 10

Under Section 31(1) and (2), the licensing requirement does not apply to the specified petty food manufacturers, who are subject to registration requirements; the applicable version of Regulation 1.2.1.4 defined a relevant petty food business by reference to an annual turnover not exceeding ₹12 lakhs.

pp. 10–12

In an appeal against acquittal, the Court will not interfere where the trial court’s findings disclose no infirmity or perversity.

p. 5, 14

Provisions in the judgment · 11 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 378 Section 207 Section 313

Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 Section 3 Section 26 Section 59 Section 32 Section 38 Section 47 Section 42 Section 31

04Reasoning

The Food Analyst’s report, though not marked as an exhibit, was available on the record and indicated that the sample packet lacked the particulars required under Rule 2.4.

p. 9

The Court held that a report based on a sample collected and sent contrary to those requirements could not establish the alleged contravention.

p. 9

The sample was received on 4 September 2017, but analysis took place between 26 October and 21 November 2017, beyond the fourteen-day period in Section 42(2).

p. 10

Further, PW1 admitted that the respondent’s turnover was ₹10 lakhs; under the regulation in force on the date of the alleged offence, the respondent therefore fell within the stated turnover threshold for a petty food manufacturer.

pp. 12–13

Considering these matters together, the Court found no basis to disturb the trial court’s assessment.

pp. 13–14

05Holding

The Court held that the prosecution had not proved the charge beyond reasonable doubt and that the trial court’s acquittal was neither infirm nor perverse.

pp. 13–14

The State’s appeal was dismissed, leaving the acquittal in place.

pp. 13–14

LawLens.Madras High Court

Original Court PDF