The Tribunal observed that a judicial proceeding without an order sheet is an oxymoron, and such non-compliance vitiates the proceedings.

The Tribunal was hearing an appeal filed under Section 70 of the FSS Act, 2006 by M/s Arif Enterprises, Srinagar, challenging the order l passed by the Adjudicating Officer, Food Safety & Standards, Srinagar, whereby a penalty of Rs 3 lakh was imposed under Section 52 of the FSS Act for misbranding of raw meat packets.

The Presiding Officer of the Food Safety Appellate Tribunal, Kashmir, Shujaat Ali Khan while allowing the appeal, observed,

"A judicial proceeding without an order sheet is an oxymoron. Recording daily order sheet, noting appearance, arguments and procedural steps is the bedrock of judicial transparency. The non-compliance of which vitiates the proceedings."

The Tribunal further observed: "Under Section 68(3) of FSS Act 2006, all proceedings before Adjudicating Officer are legally deemed to be judicial proceedings... When an Adjudicating Officer fails to record order sheets, log minutes or document daily proceedings, it leads to severe legal defects and the final order becomes arbitrary, un-reasoned and unsustainable."

Background:

The case arose from a raid conducted by the Food Safety Department on the premises Hamid Kuchay of a cold storage facility at Zakura, Srinagar, where 60 packets of meat packed in polythene bags with outer cardboard covers were found without mandatory label specifications under the Food Safety and Standards (Labelling and Display) Regulations, 2020. Kuchay stated that the consignment was supplied by Waseem Qureshi (Accused No. 2) for marketing and produced vouchers and bills.

The appellant, Arif Bashir Shah, proprietor of M/s Arif Enterprises, was arrayed as Accused No. 3. The allegation against him was that he had removed a portion of the consignment from the cold storage on the advice of Accused No. 2 using load carriers and destroyed the same without informing the Food Safety Department. The appellant admitted to having destroyed the product, stating that it was not fit for human consumption.

The Adjudicating Officer imposed a penalty of Rs 3 lakh under Section 52 of the FSS Act for misbranding. Aggrieved, the appellant approached the Appellate Tribunal.

Tribunal's Observation

The Tribunal examined the record and found several procedural lapses. On the maintainability of the penalty for misbranding, the Tribunal observed that the appellant had neither manufactured, stored, sold, nor distributed the product, and the product was not even in existence when the spot was raided. The Tribunal observed: "One may ask that if the same is taken as true how does it constitutes the offence of 'misbranding' as envisaged under Section 3(1)(zf) of FSS Act 2006."

The Tribunal held that a penalty for misbranding cannot sustain in the absence of physical seizure or recovery of the product. The Tribunal observed,

"The learned FSO has to seize a sample in presence of the witnesses whereafter he has to seal it and mark the sample and also has to draw a physical label verification report in the particular format. Where a product has neither been seized nor recovered, the primary physical evidence required to demonstrate misbranding is completely absent. Allowing a conviction or penalty without the actual recovery of the suspected package opens the door to the arbitrary speculative penalisation."

The Tribunal relied upon Manikhiru Jhangani v. State of MP (SCC 2023) and held that penalising an entity under Section 52 of the FSS Act for misbranding requires strict conformity with the process under the Act, and where mandatory pre-requisites are bypassed, administrative penalties cannot be sustained.

On the Adjudicating Officer's finding that the product was "rotten meat" and "unsafe food", the Tribunal observed that if the product was unsafe, it falls under Section 59 of the FSS Act and not Section 52, and the Adjudicating Officer would lack jurisdiction. The Tribunal observed: "It is also not fair on the part of Adjudicating Officer that he brands product in question as 'unsafe food' and then penalises the accused for misbranding."

The Tribunal relied upon Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan (AIR 1964 SC 340) and State of Maharashtra v. Syyed Hussain (SCC 2018), holding that if food is found unsafe, the Adjudicating Officer lacks jurisdiction to impose a civil penalty, and the case must be sent for criminal prosecution.

On the procedural lapses, the Tribunal found that Rule 3.1.1(6) of the FSS Rules, 2011 mandates at least 30 days from the date of service of notice for making a representation, but the Adjudicating Officer had concluded the entire case within one week. The Tribunal observed,

"The complaint was filed for its adjudication on 22-08-2025 and the order impugned was passed on 28-08-2025. Certainly the appellant was deprived of filing the representation; consult the counsel and preparation of defence. Accordingly an order passed in violation of mandatory provision of law cannot sustain the litmus test."

The Tribunal also noted that notices were issued and dispatched on 01.08.2025, twenty-one days before the complaint was filed, and accused were required to appear on 23.08.2025, the very next day. The Tribunal observed: "This is how the cases of food safety department meet their fate at the adjudicating level."

The Tribunal further found that the Adjudicating Officer had exonerated Accused No. 2 for want of address despite the complete address being available in the complaint. The Tribunal observed,

"Without sending a notice to the Accused No. 2 on the recorded address and assuming the insufficient address is fatal procedural defect."

In view of these findings the Tribunal allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order only to the extent of the appellant. The matter was remanded to the Adjudicating Officer for fresh enquiry in accordance with Section 68(2) read with Rule 3.1.1 of the FSS Rules, 2011, to the extent of Accused No. 2, who shall be summoned on the address available on file.

The Tribunal also directed that a copy of the order be forwarded to the learned Commissioner, Food & Drug Administration, J&K, for providing training sessions to the Adjudicating Officer. "The officer needs sensitisation and some training of the Food Safety and Standards Act 2006 particularly of Section 68 of FSS Act 2006 with rules made thereunder, to prevent future procedural lapses.", the court concluded.

Case Title: M/s Arif Enterprises v. U.T of J&K through Food Safety Officer, Zone-III, Srinagar

Appearances

Appellant: Advocate Naveed Naseem

Respondent: Advocate Sheikh Rizwan, Standing Counsel

Click here to read/download Judgment