The High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital Bench has held that where the Public Analyst’s report merely states that a product is misbranded by citing Section 3(1)(zf)(A)(i) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSS Act), but gives no reason or reasoning as to why the label is false or misleading, such report is insufficient to sustain prosecution or penalty for misbranding. The Court clarified that it is for the prosecution to establish that the label contains misleading information, and the burden cannot be shifted onto the person proceeded against to explain the phrase used on the label.
In the present case, since the prosecution failed to establish which information was false or misleading, and failed to address the explanation that “Maha Value” by PepsiCo India Holdings referred to quantity under the Legal Metrology framework, violation of the FSS Act was not proved.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Ravindra Maithani examined the report of the Public Analyst and found that it contained no reason or reasoning as to why the product was misbranded. The report merely stated that the original label did not comply because “Maha Value” was written in the corner of the packet, and then opined that the sample was in contravention of Section 3(1)(zf)(A)(i)(a) of the FSS Act and was therefore misbranded. The Bench observed that while the specific provision had been quoted, the report did not disclose which information on the label was false, misleading or deceptive.
The Bench referred to Section 23 of the FSS Act and Regulation 2.3.1.5 of the 2011 Regulations, both of which prohibit labels containing any statement, claim, design or device which is false or misleading in any particular concerning the food, quantity, nutritive value, or place of origin. The Bench also noted that the Tribunal had, in fact, shifted the burden on the appellant to prove the sense in which “Maha Value” was used, whereas it was for the prosecution to establish why the information was misleading. The Bench further noted that the appellant had specifically stated at the initial stage that “Maha Value” was used with reference to quantity in compliance with the Legal Metrology regime, but this aspect was not adverted to either by the Adjudicating Authority or by the Tribunal.
The Bench also relied on precedents holding that where the analyst’s report or complaint does not state how the product is misbranded, or does not contain any allegation that the label contains a false or misleading statement, the prosecution cannot be sustained. In particular, the Bench noticed that a report devoid of reasoning is as good as no opinion, and that there must be a specific averment that customers are being misled on account of misbranding.
Briefly, the case arose from an inspection conducted on June 08, 2015 by the Food Safety Officer, Garhwal at the shop of M/s N.S. Enterprise, Srinagar, Pauri Garhwal, where four packets of “Lahar Aloo Bhujia” were purchased. One sample was sent to the Food Laboratory, and the analyst opined that the product was misbranded because the label contained the phrase “Maha Value”. Thereafter, sanction was sought and adjudication proceedings were initiated. The appellant replied to the notice by contending that the phrase “Maha Value” did not relate to the food or its quality or nutritive value, and that it was used to indicate that the retail package was a value package in terms of quantity. The appellant further stated that the phrase was in compliance with the scheme of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 and the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodity) Rules, 2011.
However, the Adjudicating Authority held that writing “Maha Value” on the label violated Section 3(1)(zf)(A)(i) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and Rule 2.3.1 of the Food Safety and Standards (Packaging and Labelling) Regulations, 2011, and imposed penalty of Rs. 1.5 lakhs each on the Appellants under Section 52 of the FSS Act. The Food Safety Appellate Tribunal affirmed that order.
