The Bombay High Court at Nagpur recently quashed a criminal case initiated against Nestle India Limited and its office-bearers over concerns regarding the quality of Maggi Instant Noodles [Shyamkumar Tulsilal Warnawal vs State of Maharashtra].The case was lodged following concerns that the product did not meet certain food safety standards.In a judgment delivered on January 7, Justice Urmila Joshi Phalke held that the case filed under the Food Safety and Standards (FSS) Act was based on an invalid laboratory report and thus ordered the prosecution to be dropped.“It is clear that Section 43(1) mandates that the Food Analyst has to analyze the food in a laboratory accredited by National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration Laboratories (NABL) and also recognized by the Food Authority and notified by it. The Referral Food Laboratory, Ghaziabad in Uttar Pradesh is not one of the laboratories accredited by NABL, and therefore, it cannot be said to be the laboratory recognized by the Food Authority under Section 43(1) of the FSS Act,” the Court said.It further stated the report of the Food Analyst dated December 31, 2015 could not be taken into account as the samples were not analyzed by an accredited laboratory under Section 43 of the FSS Act. "Therefore, the report, which is the foundation for launching the prosecution against the applicants, cannot be relied upon,” the Court ruled while quashing the case..The case stemmed from a complaint filed in April 2016 by Food Safety Officer Kiran Rangaswamy Gedam. During an inspection of Nestle India's Logistic Hub in Nagpur on April 30, 2015, samples of “Maggi Instant Noodles with Tastemaker” and “Baby and Me” nutritional supplement were drawn by the food inspector. A report from the food analyst at the State public health laboratory in Pune indicated that the Maggi noodles met the required standards. However, dissatisfied with the results, he sent the sample to the Referral Food Laboratory in Ghaziabad where a reanalysis report revealed that the noodles did not meet the prescribed standards. This discrepancy led to the criminal complaint being filed against Nestle India and its office-bearers.In defense, Senior advocate SV Manohar for Nestle argued that the Referral Food Laboratory, Ghaziabad in Uttar Pradesh was not one of Laboratories which was accredited by NABL and therefore, it cannot be said to be the laboratory recognized by the Food Authority under Section 43(1) of the FSS Act. The counsel further pointed out that there was absolute non-compliance with the said provisions and that the report from the Ghaziabad laboratory should not be accepted. .Justice Phalke held that a laboratory has to pass a twin test before it can be considered a recognised laboratory. "The laboratory, therefore, has to pass twin test before it can be said to be a recognized laboratory viz (i) it has to be accredited by NABL and over and above that (ii) it has also to be recognized by the Food Authority under Section 43 of the Act. Sub-section (1) of Section 43 makes it abundantly clear that only in that laboratory which is recognized by the Food Authority by Notification, food can be sent for analysis by the Food Analysis.”She further explained that if the food is tested in a laboratory which does not fall within the definition of Section 3(p) and not recognized by the Food Authority, the analysis made in such laboratory cannot be relied upon.The Court noted that a prior report from the food analyst at Pune clearly showed that the product was in conformity with the prescribed standards and there was no reason provided for dismissing the initial analysis.Hence, it quashed the case in exercise of its powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). .Senior advocate SV Manohar along with advocate Rohan Deo appeared for Nestle.Additional Public Prosecutor Swati Kolhe appeared for the State..[Read Judgment]
