Food Sample Can Be Referred To Referral Laboratory Without Prior Hearing If Designated Officer Records Reasons: J&K&L High Court

The Court further held that once a Referral Laboratory issues its report, the earlier analyst's report loses significance and the authorities are justified in proceeding on the basis of the final scientific determination.

A Bench of Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal, while upholding the referral process adopted by the authorities, observed,

"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."

The Court was hearing a petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashment of a complaint pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate and the cognizance order issued thereon. The petitioners challenged the criminal proceedings initiated under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, contending that the sample had been referred to a Referral Laboratory without recording reasons and without affording them an opportunity of hearing before such referral.

According to the petitioners, the initial report issued by the Food Analyst had declared the sample to be of standard quality. They contended that despite the favourable report, the Designated Officer referred the sample to a Referral Laboratory without recording reasons as required under Rule 2.4.3 of the Food Safety and Standards Rules, 2011.

The petitioners further argued that no opportunity of hearing was granted before the referral and that the complaint was instituted on the basis of the Referral Laboratory report, which subsequently declared the sample unsafe. They also questioned the maintainability of proceedings against the Managing Director by relying upon Section 66 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.

The respondents opposed the petition and maintained that the Designated Officer had recorded reasons before referring the sample. It was submitted that the initial analysis had not examined several crucial parameters relating to antibiotic residues, pesticide residues and heavy metals. According to the respondents, the Referral Laboratory report constituted the final scientific determination under the statutory scheme.

Court's Observations

The Court examined Rule 2.4.3 of the Food Safety and Standards Rules, 2011 and observed that the provision authorises the Designated Officer to refer a sample to a Referral Laboratory if he forms an opinion, for reasons recorded in writing, that the report of the Food Analyst is erroneous.

The Court held that the object underlying the Rule is to ensure effective scientific scrutiny of food samples where the initial analysis appears incomplete, deficient or erroneous. It observed that the statutory mechanism is intended to safeguard public health and prevent unsafe food products from escaping proper examination.

Upon examining the record, the Court found that the Designated Officer had specifically recorded that important parameters relating to antibiotic residues, pesticide residues and heavy metals had not been tested in the initial analysis. The Court held that the statutory requirement of recording reasons had therefore been duly satisfied.

Referring to Mackinon Mackenzie Ltd. v. Mackinnon Employees Union (2015), the Court reiterated that where a statute prescribes a particular manner for performing an act, the same must be followed in that manner alone. The Court held that the authorities had acted strictly in accordance with the statutory procedure and observed,

"the Designated Officer has acted precisely in the manner contemplated by the statute and the procedure prescribed under Rule 2.4.3 was duly followed and reasons were recorded in writing before referring the sample to the Referral Laboratory."

Rejecting the contention regarding absence of hearing, the Court held that neither the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 nor the Rules framed thereunder contemplate any pre-decisional hearing before the Designated Officer exercises powers under Rule 2.4.3. The Court held that once the statute itself permits referral upon recording of reasons, absence of prior hearing cannot invalidate the proceedings.

The Court also rejected the allegation regarding existence of an undisclosed report, holding that the contention was speculative and unsupported by any material on record.

While considering the evidentiary value of the Referral Laboratory report, the Court held that under the statutory framework the Referral Laboratory functions as the final scientific authority. Relying upon the decision of the Madras High Court in A. Venkatrama v. The Food Safety Officer (2023), the Court 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 emphasised that once the Referral Laboratory issues a report after comprehensive scientific examination, the earlier report loses significance. It observed that the subsequent report cannot be treated as contradictory merely because the first report had tested limited parameters, since the Referral Laboratory undertakes a broader and more conclusive examination.

On the challenge to the prosecution of the Managing Director, the Court examined Section 66 of the Food Safety and Standards Act and held that the statutory provision does not grant blanket immunity to persons occupying positions of overall control in a company merely because another officer has been nominated for food safety purposes. The Court held that questions relating to knowledge, consent, connivance or due diligence are matters of evidence to be examined during trial.

Finding no illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the complaint or the cognizance order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, the Court dismissed the petition and vacated the interim protection operating in favour of the petitioners.

The Chief Judicial Magistrate was directed to proceed with the complaint in accordance with law and make all possible endeavours to conclude the proceedings expeditiously, preferably within six months.

Case Title: S.D. Mevada & Anr. v. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir Through Food Safety Officer, Block Shopian

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL)

Click here to read/download Judgment