Authority: High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction

Order Date: 11 September 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Applicant – Britannia Dairy Private Limited (wholly owned subsidiary of Britannia Industries Ltd); Respondents – State of Maharashtra (Public Prosecutor) and Food Safety Officer P.S. Pawar.
  • Proceedings: Application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita) seeking quash of Criminal Case No. 5349/SS/2014 and the issuance of process dated 28 July 2014. The proceedings were previously stayed on 12 January 2018.
  • Background: The disputed product – Britannia Cheese Cubes (Sour Cream and Onion) – was packed on 12 February 2013 with a 9‑month shelf‑life (expiry 12 November 2013). A sample was taken on 30 July 2013; the Food Analyst report (No. 734/2013) dated 14 August 2013 found fungal infestation, deeming the product unsafe under Section 3(1)(zz)(iii) and (x) of the Food Safety and Standards Act (FSS Act).
  • Notices: Respondent No. 2 issued a Form V‑A notice to the retailer on 30 July 2013 and a notice to the applicant under Rule 2.4.1(4) on 17 May 2014 – six months after the product’s shelf‑life had expired. The applicant was not provided the Food Analyst report, thereby losing the statutory right to request a fourth‑part analysis (Rule 2.4.5) and to file an appeal under Section 46(4) of the FSS Act.
  • Licensing Issue: The product label listed the marketing address as ‘Reay Road, Mazgaon, Mumbai’, but the applicant held a valid FSSAI licence only for ‘Ballard Estate, Mumbai’. This constituted a breach of Section 31(1) and Section 63 of the FSS Act, indicating operation from an unlicensed premises.
  • State’s Contentions: The State argued that the applicant distributed unsafe food, operated from an unlicensed premises, and that the marketer is liable under Section 27 of the FSS Act. It maintained that all procedural requirements, including sampling, sealing, and notice, were complied with.
  • Applicant’s Contentions: The applicant contended that the notice was unduly delayed, depriving it of statutory rights to retest and appeal; that the process order was a rubber‑stamp issued without any inquiry; and that two accused persons (Nos. 12 and 13) resided outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, necessitating a Section 202 CrPC inquiry before process could be issued.

Observations & Reasoning

  • The Court observed that the notice under Rule 2.4.1(4) was issued after the product’s shelf‑life had expired, extinguishing the applicant’s rights under Rules 2.4.5 and 2.4.6.
  • The Food Analyst report was never forwarded to the applicant, preventing the filing of an appeal under Section 46(4) of the FSS Act.
  • The order of issuance of process was dated the same day as the complaint (28 July 2014) and contained no findings or reasoning, violating the requirement of an inquiry under Section 202 CrPC.
  • Because accused Nos. 12 and 13 were located in Baramati, Pune district, they were beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Mazgaon magistrate; therefore, a Section 202 inquiry was mandatory before process could be issued.
  • While the Court acknowledged violations of the FSS Act (unlicensed premises and unsafe product), it emphasized that the special Act’s procedural safeguards must be strictly observed. Continuing the criminal proceedings without compliance would constitute an abuse of process.
  • Invoking its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS), the Court found the circumstances warranted quashing the proceedings to prevent miscarriage of justice.

Final Outcome

  • The application is allowed. Criminal Case No. 5349/SS/2014 and the order of issuance of process dated 28 July 2014 are quashed and set aside.

Topics: Food Safety Enforcement, Criminal Procedure