Bombay HC Quashes Case Against Britannia Dairy Over Unsafe Cheese, Cites Violation Of Food Safety Safeguards

Mumbai, September 18: The Bombay High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against Britannia Dairy Private Limited over allegations of selling unsafe cheese, holding that the company was denied a fair opportunity to challenge the food safety report before prosecution was launched.

Justice RR Bhonsale noted that the company was served notice only after the product had crossed its shelf life, leaving it unable to have the sample tested by a referral laboratory. The lapse, the court said, deprived the company of safeguards under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.

Case Concerned Cheese Product

The case concerned Britannia Cheese Cubes (Sour Cream and Onion), manufactured by Schreiber Dynamix Dairies Limited and marketed by Britannia Dairy. A sample collected by the Food Safety Officer was allegedly found to be infested with fungus and declared unsafe under the FSS Act.

Britannia Dairy, a wholly owned subsidiary of Britannia Industries Limited, had approached the HC seeking quashing of the criminal case pending before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and the order issuing process passed on July 28, 2014.

The company submitted that it received notice only on May 17, 2014, after the cheese had expired. It therefore could neither have the fourth part of the sample analysed by a referral laboratory nor challenge the Food Analyst’s report.

Court Notes Statutory Safeguards

The court noted that Britannia Dairy, whose name appeared on the product label as the marketer, was entitled to these statutory safeguards.

“By issuing a notice after the expiry of the shelf life, the Applicant has clearly lost its right to exercise the option available” under the relevant rules, Justice Bhonsale observed.

The court also noted that the Food Analyst’s report was never supplied to the company, denying it the opportunity to file an appeal.

“It cannot be that the mandatory provisions and safeguards as provided under the FSS Act... are not complied with in their proper letter and spirit,” the court said.

Magistrate Order Criticised

The HC further criticised the magistrate’s order issuing process, calling it a “rubber stamp order” that did not reflect application of mind. It noted that some accused persons resided outside the magistrate’s territorial jurisdiction, making an inquiry under Section 202 of the CrPC mandatory before issuing process.

Also Watch:

Holding that continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of court, the HC quashed the criminal proceedings and the order issuing process. It allowed the application under Section 482 of the CrPC, corresponding to Section 528 of the BNSS.

To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/