Public Health Prevails Over Commercial Interests: J&K&L High Court Refuses To Quash Prosecution Against Amul Officials In Unsafe Milk Case
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has refused to quash criminal proceedings initiated against officials of Banaskantha District Cooperative Milk Producers' Union Ltd. (Amul), holding that the report of a Referral Laboratory declaring a milk sample unsafe overrides an earlier report of the Food Analyst and constitutes sufficient material for prosecution under the Food Safety...
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has refused to quash criminal proceedings initiated against officials of Banaskantha District Cooperative Milk Producers' Union Ltd. (Amul), holding that the report of a Referral Laboratory declaring a milk sample unsafe overrides an earlier report of the Food Analyst and constitutes sufficient material for prosecution under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.
Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal, while dismissing the petition, observed,
“... This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the public health is of paramount importance and must prevail over private commercial interests.” The Court further emphasized that “Once the statutory Referral Laboratory, after detailed scientific examination, declared the sample unsafe, the matter ceased to remain a mere dispute between the parties and became an issue directly affecting public health and public safety.”
The Court was hearing a petition filed under Section 482 CrPC by S.D. Mevada, Assistant Manager (Quality Assurance), and Kamraj Ramsang Bhai Chaudary, Incharge Managing Director of the milk producers' union, seeking quashment of a complaint pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shopian, and the cognizance order. The prosecution arose from sampling of “Amul Taza Homogenized Toned Milk,” which was subsequently declared unsafe by the Referral Laboratory of the National Dairy Development Board, Anand, Gujarat.
The controversy arose after the Food Safety Officer, Shopian, collected a sample of “Amul Taza Homogenized Toned Milk” and sent it for laboratory analysis in accordance with the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.
The petitioners contended that the Food Analyst, Kashmir Division, had issued a report declaring the sample to be of standard quality. According to them, despite the favourable report, the authorities referred the sample to the Referral Laboratory without consulting the company and without granting any opportunity of hearing. Thereafter, the Referral Laboratory declared the sample unsafe, leading to filing of a criminal complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shopian.
The petitioners argued that the Designated Officer had failed to comply with Rule 2.4.3 of the Food Safety and Standards Rules, 2011, which requires recording of reasons before treating an analyst's report as erroneous and referring the sample for further testing. They also contended that the Managing Director could not be prosecuted in view of the nomination of another officer for food safety purposes under Section 66 of the Food Safety and Standards Act.
The Union Territory opposed the petition, asserting that the Designated Officer had recorded detailed reasons before referring the sample to the Referral Laboratory. It was pointed out that the initial report had tested only eight parameters and had not examined crucial safety indicators such as antibiotic residues, pesticide residues and heavy metals. Consequently, the sample was referred for comprehensive testing, which ultimately resulted in the food article being declared unsafe.
Court's Observations:
The High Court rejected the principal contention of the petitioners that the sample had been referred to the Referral Laboratory without recording reasons. Examining the record produced before it, the Court found that the Designated Officer had specifically noted that important parameters, including antibiotic residues, pesticide residues and heavy metals, had not been tested in the initial analysis and that a comprehensive examination was therefore necessary.
The Court observed that Rule 2.4.3 of the Food Safety and Standards Rules was enacted to ensure effective scientific scrutiny of food products where an initial report appears incomplete or deficient. According to the Court, the Designated Officer acted strictly within the statutory framework by recording reasons and referring the sample for further testing.
In a significant observation, the Court held,
“The authorities entrusted with implementation of the Food Safety and Standards Act cannot be expected to mechanically accept an incomplete report when important safety parameters affecting human health remain unexamined.”
Rejecting the argument that the petitioners ought to have been granted a hearing before referral of the sample, the Court held that neither the Food Safety and Standards Act nor the Rules contemplate any pre-decisional hearing before exercise of powers under Rule 2.4.3. The Court ruled that once the statute empowers the Designated Officer to act after recording reasons, absence of prior hearing cannot invalidate the proceedings.
The Court also rejected the contention that there existed contradictory reports. It held that the first report examined only limited parameters, whereas the Referral Laboratory conducted a comprehensive scientific analysis. Consequently, the subsequent report could not be treated as contradictory but rather constituted the final and conclusive determination under the statutory scheme.
Relying upon a decision of the Madras High Court, the Court reiterated that the report of the Referral Laboratory is final and carries overriding effect over earlier reports. Justice Nargal observed, “The Referral Laboratory under the statutory framework is the final scientific authority and the opinion rendered by such expert body carries overriding effect.”
The Court further held that the Managing Director could not claim blanket immunity merely because another officer had been nominated for food safety functions. Referring to Section 66 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, the Court observed that every person responsible for the conduct of the company's business may be proceeded against, and whether the Managing Director had exercised due diligence or lacked knowledge of the alleged offence is a matter to be examined during trial.
Emphasizing the larger public interest involved, the Court observed that milk is consumed daily by children, infants, pregnant women, elderly persons and patients, and contaminated milk products may cause long-term and irreversible consequences.
The High Court thus concluded that the Designated Officer had duly recorded reasons before referring the milk sample to the Referral Laboratory and that the statutory procedure prescribed under the Food Safety and Standards Act and the Rules had been followed in letter and spirit.
Accordingly, the petition seeking quashment of criminal proceedings was dismissed,
Case Title: S.D. Mevada & Anr. v. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir through Food Safety Officer, Block Shopian
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL)
Appearances
Petitioners: Mr. Reyaz Ahmad Mir, Advocate
Respondent: Mr. Hakim Aman Ali, Deputy Advocate General