M/S ITC Limited vs. Food Safety Inspector

Facts

M/s. ITC Limited, a manufacturer of food products including Sunfeast Yippee Noodles, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 25.11.2015 passed by the Additional District Magistrate cum Adjudicating Authority, Vijayapura. The challenge was to a prosecution initiated against ITC Limited (Accused No.3) and others. The prosecution stemmed from a sample of Sunfeast Yippee Noodles Magic Masala purchased on 11.06.2015, which was subsequently found to be 'misbranded' by the Divisional Food Laboratory at Belgaum on 23.06.2015. ITC Limited, in its objections before the Adjudicating Authority, contended that the complaint copy was not furnished, no reasons were given for the 'misbranded' classification, and no notice was provided before sample collection. The Adjudicating Authority rejected these grounds and imposed a fine of Rs.3,00,000/- on accused Nos.2 to 4, including the petitioner.

Held

The Court held that the prosecution was misconceived and illegal. The primary issue revolved around the 'No MSG added' claim on the packaging. The Court noted that the Food Analyst's report itself indicated that there is no analytical method to determine whether MSG was added during manufacture or was naturally present, and that this could only be ascertained through inspection of the manufacturing premises. The Court referred to FSSAI's clarification notifications dated 31.03.2016 and 29.09.2018, which stated that adjudication proceedings for 'misbranding' due to a 'No MSG' claim without determining MSG addition during manufacturing would be inconsistent with FSSAI orders. Since no visit to the manufacturing unit was conducted and the prosecution was initiated solely based on the Food Analyst's report without ascertaining MSG addition, the prosecution was deemed bad in law. The Court also noted that the 'No added MSG' declaration was subsequently removed from the packaging. Relying on various precedents, including a similar case involving ITC Limited, the Court found the prosecution unwarranted and allowed the petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the prosecution for 'misbranding' based on the claim 'No MSG added' on the product packaging is legally sustainable without ascertaining whether Monosodium Glutamate (MSG) was deliberately added during the manufacturing process? (Relates to Section 2(1)(m) and Section 2(1)(zf) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, and Regulation No.2.2.1(3) of the Food Safety and Standards (Packaging and Labelling) Rules, 2011). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that there was no evidence to prove the product was misbranded, as the Food Analyst's report indicated compliance with requirements and suggested testing for MSG at a referral laboratory. They contended that prosecution was illegal without such testing and without physical inspection of the manufacturing premises to ascertain MSG addition, especially given FSSAI's orders dated 31.03.2016 and 29.09.2018. The petitioner also raised issues regarding proper sanction and the unavailability of the Tribunal under Section 70 of the Act. Revenue's arguments: The respondent contended that the product was misbranded because the packaging declared 'No MSG added', and the petitioner did not attempt to get the second sample analyzed through a NABL accredited or referral laboratory, making the prosecution just and proper.