Uttarakhand High Court Quashes Maggi Noodles Misbranding Case Against Nestlé, Says Food Analyst's Report Was Legally Unsustainable

The Uttarakhand High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against Nestlé India Limited and other applicants arising out of a Food Analysis Report alleging that “MAGGI 2-Minute Noodles” were “misbranded” and “unsafe” and in contravention of various sections of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.

Observing that the prosecution was founded on a Food Analyst's report issued by the State Food and Drug Testing Laboratory, Rudrapur, which was neither shown to be NABL accredited nor duly notified under Section 43 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, the Court held that the very foundation of the prosecution was “legally unsustainable”.

Furthermore, the Court also found the complaints to be suffering from several legal infirmities relating to prosecution of the company and its nominees, defects relating to cognisance beyond the limitation period as well sanction for prosecution, which further vitiated the prosecution case.

Justice Alok Mahra was dealing with a batch of petitions under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of complaint cases, cognizance orders, summoning orders and all consequential proceedings for offences punishable under Sections 52 and 59 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 against Nestle.

The proceedings arose after samples of “MAGGI 2-Minute Noodles” collected in Uttarakhand in May 2015 were analysed by the State Food and Drug Testing Laboratory, Rudrapur, which reported that the product was “misbranded” and “unsafe”. Acting on the report, the authorities accorded sanction for prosecution and instituted complaints against the vendor and Nestlé India Limited.

Importantly, the present prosecution cases formed part of the nationwide action initiated after concerns were raised regarding MAGGI Noodles in 2015. During the same period, FSSAI directed withdrawal and recall of the product, which led Nestlé to challenge the regulatory action before the Bombay High Court. The Bombay High Court, finding the testing lab to be lacking statutory competence, subsequently set aside the impugned orders and directed fresh testing through accredited and notified laboratories. The fresh reports as directed by the Bombay High Court, as well as the reports obtained from CFTRI, Mysore upon the directions of the Supreme Court during subsequent proceedings before it found the samples compliant with the prescribed standards. 

In the present applications, before the Uttarakhand High Court, the applicants principally contended that the prosecution itself was without legal foundation because the State Food and Drug Testing Laboratory, Rudrapur was neither NABL accredited nor notified by FSSAI under Section 43 of the FSS Act when it analysed the samples.

They further submitted that the allegation relating to Monosodium Glutamate (MSG) was misconceived in light of FSSAI's clarification that prosecution should not be initiated merely on detection of glutamate unless it was independently established that MSG had been deliberately added during manufacture. It was also clarified that glutamate in many foods is a naturally occurring substance and no scientific analysis exists to distinguish between naturally occurring glutamate and artificially added MSG. It was further pointed out that an inspection conducted by the Food Safety Department at the Pantnagar facility found that MSG was not being added during the manufacturing process.

The State, on the other hand, submitted that the complaints disclosed offences under the FSS Act and that the proceedings ought not to be quashed at the threshold. 

“…Continuation of criminal prosecution against the applicants on the basis of reports issued by laboratories lacking statutory competence cannot be sustained. A perusal of Sections 3(1)(p) and 43 of the FSS Act makes it abundantly clear that a "Food Laboratory" must be both accredited by NABL and recognised/notified by the Food Authority. Unless both conditions stand satisfied, the laboratory cannot legally undertake analysis under the Act.

In the present case, there is no material on record to establish that the State Food and Drug Testing Laboratory, Rudrapur was NABL accredited and duly notified under Section 43 of the FSS Act at the relevant time when the impugned analysis was conducted. Once the very foundation of the prosecution, namely the Food Analyst's report, is rendered legally unsustainable, continuation of criminal proceedings on the basis thereof would amount to abuse of the process of law”, the Court held.

Furthermore, apart from the infirmity relating to the Food Analysis report, the Court found that the prosecution suffered from several other legal and procedural defects.

“This Court also finds substance in the contention raised on behalf of the applicants that the prosecution is vitiated for non-impleadment of the company in accordance with Section 66 of the FSS Act. The law relating to vicarious liability of officers and nominees of a company stands settled by the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Aneeta Hada v. Godfather Travels & Tours Pvt. Ltd. and Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, wherein it has been held that prosecution of officers or nominees without arraigning the company itself as an accused is not maintainable, except in exceptional circumstances recognised in law.

Section 66 of the FSS Act specifically provides that where an offence has been committed by a company, the company “as well as” every person responsible for conduct of its business shall be deemed guilty. The liability of officers is therefore vicarious and contingent upon prosecution of the company itself”, the Court said.

Hence, holding that the complaints did not satisfy the statutory requirements governing the prosecution of companies and their nominees, it found the continuation of proceedings to be legally unsustainable.

The Court further observed that the samples were taken in 2015, but the cognisance came to be taken beyond the limitation period prescribed under Sec 77 of the FSS Act. Since there was no material to show that the Commissioner of Food Safety had extended the limitation period by recording reasons in writing, cognizance beyond the prescribed period was held to be legally unsustainable under the mandate of Sec 77.

The Court also found the sanction for prosecution to be defective. Observing that Section 42 contemplates sanction by the Commissioner of Food Safety, it noted that the sanction had instead been accorded by the Chief Medical Officer, who was not shown to be duly authorised. Relying on A.K. Roy v. State of Punjab, the Court held that the prosecution, instituted pursuant to such defective sanction, was vitiated in law.

Hence, holding that continuation of the proceedings despite these legal and procedural infirmities would merely subject the applicants to “unnecessary harassment and a protracted criminal trial which is otherwise bound to fail”, the Court allowed the applications in question.

Accordingly, the complaints, cognizance orders, summoning orders and all consequential proceedings initiated against the applicants under Sections 52 and 59 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 were quashed and the applicants were discharged from the proceedings. 

Case: Nestle India Limited Versus State Of Uttarakhand and Another [Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 1355 of 2019]

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (UK) 82

Click Here To Read/Download Order