Printing "Maha Value" On Pepsi Bottles Not 'Misbranding' Under Food Safety Act Unless Proven To Be Misleading: Uttarakhand HC
The Uttarakhand High Court has held that merely printing the phrase "Maha Value" on a food packet does not amount to misbranding under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 unless it is established that the statement is false, misleading or deceptive. The Court observed that it is for the prosecution to prove how the impugned expression misleads consumers and a finding of misbranding...
The Uttarakhand High Court has held that merely printing the phrase "Maha Value" on a food packet does not amount to misbranding under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 unless it is established that the statement is false, misleading or deceptive. The Court observed that it is for the prosecution to prove how the impugned expression misleads consumers and a finding of misbranding cannot rest on a Food Analyst's report that merely labels the product as misbranded without assigning any reasons.
Justice Ravindra Maithani was hearing an appeal filed by PepsiCo India Holdings Private Limited, challenging orders of the Adjudicating Officer and the Food Safety Appellate Tribunal imposing a penalty of ₹1.5 lakh on the company for alleged misbranding of "Lahar Aloo Bhujia". The proceedings arose from an inspection conducted by a Food Safety Officer on 8 June 2015 at a shop in Srinagar, during which samples of the product were collected and sent for analysis. The Food Analyst opined that the product was misbranded because the phrase "Maha Value" was printed on the corner of the packet.
Before the authorities, the company contended that the expression "Maha Value" did not relate to the quality or nutritive value of the food product and was used only to indicate that the retail package offered value in terms of quantity.
The Court examined the Food Analyst's report and observed that apart from stating that the label did not comply with the law because "Maha Value" was printed on the packet, the report did not disclose any reason as to why the product was misbranded. The Court noted that the report merely referred to the relevant statutory provision and concluded that the product was misbranded without explaining which information was false or misleading.
Referring to the definition of "misbranded food" under Section 3(1)(zf) of the Act and the provisions governing packaging and labelling, the Court observed that misbranding requires a false, misleading or deceptive claim. The Court noted that neither the Food Analyst nor the prosecution had identified any false or misleading statement on the label. The Court further observed that the burden had been incorrectly shifted onto the company to explain the meaning of the expression "Maha Value", whereas it was for the prosecution to establish how the statement misled consumers.
“… the burden was shifted on the appellant to prove as to what is the sense of using “Maha Value” on the label. In fact, it is the prosecution to establish, as to why the information is misleading… the public analyst report simply states that it is misbranded in view of Section 3(1)(zf)(A)(i) of the FSS Act,” the Court observed.
The Court also noted that the company's explanation that the phrase referred to quantity and value packaging under the Legal Metrology framework had not been considered either by the Adjudicating Authority or by the Tribunal. Observing that the prosecution had failed to establish that the label contained any misleading information or that any provision of the Food Safety and Standards Act had been violated, the Court held that the findings of misbranding could not be sustained.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal and set aside the orders of the Adjudicating Officer and the Food Safety Appellate Tribunal imposing penalty upon the appellant.
Case Title: PepsiCo India Holdings Private Limited v. State of Uttarakhand & Anr. [Appeal From Order No. 305 of 2024]