Delhi High Court Quashes Cases Over Maggi Noodles' Lead Content Allegations
The Delhi High Court has quashed criminal proceedings initiated against food business operators in connection with the Maggi Noodles controversy of 2015, over allegations that the product was “unsafe” due to lead content allegedly exceeding the prescribed limit. Justice Madhu Jain said that the very foundation of the prosecution had “substantially eroded” following subsequent judicial...
The Delhi High Court has quashed criminal proceedings initiated against food business operators in connection with the Maggi Noodles controversy of 2015, over allegations that the product was “unsafe” due to lead content allegedly exceeding the prescribed limit.
Justice Madhu Jain said that the very foundation of the prosecution had “substantially eroded” following subsequent judicial and scientific findings that cleared the product.
The Court allowed the pleas filed by Dharmendra Hansraj Kotak and others, and quashed the criminal complaints, summoning orders and all consequential proceedings arising from prosecutions launched under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.
The cases stemmed from samples of Maggi Noodles collected by Delhi's Food Safety Department during the nationwide sampling exercise in May 2015.
The Food Analyst had reported that the samples were “unsafe” due to lead content exceeding the prescribed limit. A complaint also alleged misbranding over the “No Added MSG” declaration. Summons were issued in 2015 and 2016.
The petitioners contended that the prosecutions could not survive because the Bombay High Court had subsequently set aside the nationwide ban on Maggi Noodles.
They further relied on fresh tests conducted by accredited laboratories and later by the Central Food Technological Research Institute (CFTRI), which found the lead content to be within permissible limits.
On the other hand, the prosecution opposed the petitions, arguing that the cases were independent proceedings based on samples collected in Delhi and that the accused had failed to avail the statutory remedy of seeking analysis by the Referral Food Laboratory at the relevant time.
Allowing the pleas, the Court observed that the prosecution rested entirely on the Food Analyst's reports declaring the product unsafe. However, the said reports had subsequently been subjected to extensive judicial scrutiny before the Bombay High Court which directed fresh testing through accredited laboratories.
It also noted that the Supreme Court later directed that samples be tested by CFTRI, a recognised Referral Food Laboratory, and held that the CFTRI report should form the basis of adjudication before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC).
“The complaints before this Court arise out of the very same nationwide sampling exercise undertaken during May, 2015. The allegations, the alleged analytical deficiencies and the scientific issues are substantially identical. The prosecution does not rely upon any independent evidence of adulteration apart from the Food Analyst's reports generated during the original sampling exercise,” the Court said.
It added that once the original analytical reports became the subject matter of judicial scrutiny and fresh testing was directed through a Referral Food Laboratory recognized under the statute, the evidentiary value of the earlier reports necessarily stood diluted.
The Court said that the subsequent scientific evaluation undertaken under the supervision of the Supreme Court cannot be ignored while examining whether continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve the ends of justice.
It observed that where the very scientific foundation upon which the prosecution rested had undergone subsequent examination through a process supervised by the constitutional courts, the High Court cannot remain oblivious to those developments while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
“Having regard to the subsequent orders passed by the Bombay High Court, the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court resulting in fresh analysis through CFTRI, the culmination of the proceedings before the NCDRC and the subsequent decisions rendered by the Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand High Courts, this Court is of the considered view that permitting the present prosecutions to continue would serve no useful purpose. The continuation of the complaints would merely compel the petitioners to undergo a protracted criminal trial despite the very foundation of the prosecution having substantially eroded,” the judge said.
Accordingly, the Court quashed the complaints, summoning orders dated November 6, 2015 and January 11, 2016, and all consequential proceedings.
Title: DHARMENDRA HANSRAJ KOTAK & ORS v. STATE OF DELHI & ANR & other connected matter