Delhi District Court
Rajesh Subramaniam And Ors vs Food Safety Officer on 1 August, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER KUMAR BANSAL
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE/
FOOD SAFETY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL/
NEW DELHI DISTRICT,
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
FSAT No. 13/2024
CNR No. DLND01-008819-2024
1. Rajesh Subramaniam
S/o. Sh. Karpan Subramaniam
R/o. H. No.455-C, Sunlight Colony,
New Delhi-110014
2. Vijay Kumar
S/o. Sh. Surendra Prasad
R/o. I-21, Basement, Lajpat Nagar-III,
Delhi-110024
3. M/s. RV Cafe Private Limited
A-13, Ground, First & Second Floor,
Vishal Enclave, Rajouri Garden,
New Delhi-110027
4 Yashpal Ashok
S/o. Sh. Jagdish Chander Ashok
R/o. I-21, Basement, Lajpat Nagar-III,
New Delhi-110027
5. Priyank Sukhija
S/o. Sh. Yashpal Ashok
R/o. I-21, Basement, Lajpat Nagar-III,
New Delhi-110027
6. M/s. First Fiddle Restaurant LLP
Office at : I-21, Basement, Lajpat Nagar-III,
New Delhi-110027 ....... Appellants
Versus
Digitally signed
VIRENDER by VIRENDER
KUMAR KUMAR BANSAL
Date: 2025.08.01
BANSAL 16:14:31 +0530
FSAT No.13/2024 Rajesh Subramaniam & Ors. Vs. Food Safety Officer Page 1 of 10
1. Food Safety Officer
Department of Food Safety,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi, 8th Floor, Mayur Bhawan,
Shanker Market, Connaught Place,
New Delhi-110001 ....... Respondent
2. Surinder Singh Rana
S/o. Sh. Brahma Nand
R/o. H. No.107, Sunder Nagar,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi ......Proforma Respondent
Date of institution : 06.11.2024
Arguments heard on : 01.08.2025
Date of Judgment : 01.08.2025
Appearances:
Ms. Megha Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the appellants.
Sh. Birender Singh Dagar, Ld. Chief Public Prosecutor for the FSO/
respondent.
JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal has been preferred challenging the order dated 19.09.2024 by the Adjudicating Officer whereby they have been held guilty for violation of Section 25(1)(i) of the Act by importing mis-branded articles of food by respondents Nos.8 and 9 and violated the provisions of Section 27(2)(c) of the Act. Respondent No.10 had also violated the provisions of Section 25(1)(i) of the Act and respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 7 have also violated the provisions of Section 27(3)(c) of the Act by supplying/selling the mis- branded articles of food. It was also held that they have also violated the provisions of Section 23(1), 26(1) and 26(2) (ii) by storing/distributing/supplying/selling the food article, which is not marked and labelled in the manner and is mis-branded as specified by Regulation No.2.2.2.10. The Adjudicating Authority, thereafter, imposed the penalty of Digitally signed by VIRENDER VIRENDER KUMAR KUMAR BANSAL Date: 2025.08.01 BANSAL 16:15:06 +0530 FSAT No.13/2024 Rajesh Subramaniam & Ors. Vs. Food Safety Officer Page 2 of 10 Rs.10,000/- each upon the appellants.
2. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on 02.08.2018, the Food Safety Officer visited the premises of M/s. Lord of Drinks situated at A-13, Ground Floor, Najafgarh road, Vishal Enclave, New Delhi. During the random inspection of the premises, the Food Safety Officer asked for the invoices of the food products/articles kept in the kitchen area and sealed in the packed boxes, which were provided to the FSO and were supplied by M/s. First Fiddle Restaurant i.e. respondent No.7 in the original order and M/s. Groshop Ventures Pvt. Ltd. i.e. respondent No.9 in the original order. The FSO picked-up the sealed package of Pasta Penne Rigate (ready for use) from the box, as sample, which was delivered by M/s. Groshop Ventures Pvt. Ltd. The samples were sent for analysis.
3. On 04.09.2018, M/s. R.V. Cafe Pvt. Ltd. received copy of the Food Analyst Report No. FSS/1295/2018 dated 14.08.2018 of the sample taken by FSO in his name and in the name of M/s. Lord of the Drinkss name. Upon perusal, the appellants came to know that sample by the Food Safety Officer, which was supplied by M/s. Groshop Ventures Pvt. Ltd. were in violation of Regulation No.2.2.1.5 and 2.2.2.10 of the Food Safety & Standards (Packaging & Labelling) Regulation, 2011 as the label declaration like nutritional information, vegetarian symbol, name and address of manufacturer and importer, date of manufacturing and the best before declaration are not readily legible by the consumer under normal conditions of purchase and use and that the best before declaration is not in capital letters. However, all other statutory requirements were found positive and in Digitally signed VIRENDER by VIRENDER KUMAR KUMAR BANSAL Date: 2025.08.01 BANSAL 16:15:24 +0530 FSAT No.13/2024 Rajesh Subramaniam & Ors. Vs. Food Safety Officer Page 3 of 10 compliance of the Act. The information asked by the FSO was provided.
4. The appellants, thereafter, received the notice from the Adjudicating Authority. After conclusion of proceedings vide order dated 19.09.2024 the appellants herein were held guilty and penalty of Rs.70,000/- was imposed. Being aggrieved, the present appeal has been preferred.
5. Notice of the appeal was sent to the Food Safety Officer, record of the Adjudicating Officer was also called for.
6. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the appellants, Ld. Counsel for the department and perused the record.
7. Ld. Counsel for the appellants submitted that the Adjudicating Officer has failed to consider that the sample, which was taken by the FSO, was manufactured by M/s.Groshop Ventures Pvt. Ltd. and was supplied by M/s. Top Notch Retail Pvt. Ltd., which was further supplied to appellant No.7 and the restaurant M/s. Lord of Drinkss against valid invoices and, therefore, appellant Nos.1 to 6 are entitled to the benefits in terms of Section 80(B)(2)(a) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 as the appellants have exercised due diligence and took all reasonable precautions. They have used the article as it was supplied and in the packing itself.
8. Ld. Counsel further submitted that Adjudicating Officer failed to consider that the sample collected cannot be termed as mis-branded as all the declarations are quite readable/legible, which is evident from the fact that the Digitally signed VIRENDER by VIRENDER KUMAR KUMAR BANSAL Date: 2025.08.01 BANSAL 16:15:33 +0530 FSAT No.13/2024 Rajesh Subramaniam & Ors. Vs. Food Safety Officer Page 4 of 10 same details are also mentioned in Form 5A filled on the spot on 02.08.2018. If the information would not have been legible, it could not have been recorded on Form 5A. Ld. Counsel submitted that even otherwise the appellants herein are not the manufacturer. The manufacturer is M/s. Groshop Ventures Pvt. Ltd. The only violation alleged is that it should have been in capital letters instead of the small letters, but that does not amount to mis-branding. Ld. Counsel further submitted that the inference drawn is only on the basis of the report of the Analyst, but he has no domain to report the sample being mis-branded as held by the Hon'ble High of Rajasthan in the case titled as Bhole Baba Industries (Dholpur) & Another Vs. State of Rajasthan & Another, [(2018) 1 FAC 253].
9. Ld. Counsel further submitted that the Adjudicating Officer has also failed to consider the directions issued by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India vide No.1(56) 2015/Advisory/FSSAI dated 17.01.2020 where it was directed to take action U/s.32 of FSS Act in case of minor labelling defects, which do not endanger food safety instead of resorting to adjudicating proceedings. The Adjudicating Officer has also ignored all these facts. It is prayed that under the circumstances and keeping in view the law it cannot be said to be a mis-branding. Even the directions requires issuing notice on such minor labelling defects instead of adjudicating or prosecuting. Ld. Counsel submitted that the order of the Adjudicating Officer is not in accordance with the rules and the law. It is prayed that the same be set aside and the appellants be acquitted. Ld. Counsel in support of his submissions has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in case titled as P. Robert Immanuel and Ors. Vs. The State Digitally signed VIRENDER by VIRENDER KUMAR KUMAR BANSAL Date: 2025.08.01 BANSAL 16:15:42 +0530 FSAT No.13/2024 Rajesh Subramaniam & Ors. Vs. Food Safety Officer Page 5 of 10 decided on 17.08.2009.
10. Ld. Counsel has also referred to the judgment passed by my Ld. Predecessor in FSAT No. 17/2022 titled as Ravi Tickoo and Others Vs. Food Safety Officer.
11. It is prayed that keeping in view this judgment and the law laid down the benefit be given to the appellants herein and they be acquitted.
12. Ld. Chief P.P. for the FSO submitted that the Adjudicating Officer has considered all the facts. There is no merit in the appeal and is liable to be dismissed. Ld. Chief P.P. for the FSO submitted that the food article was lifted and it was found that they have not complied with the provisions as per Food Safety and Standards (Packaging and labelling) Regulations, 2011. Rule 2.2. of Food Safety and Standards (Packaging and labelling) Regulations, 2011 reads as follows:
"2.2: Labelling 2.2.1: General Requirements
1. Every pre-packaged food shall carry a label containing information as required here under unfess otherwise provided, namely,-
2. The particulars of declaration required under these Regulations to be specified on the label shall be in English or Hindi in Devnagri script:
Provided that nothing herein contained shall prevent the use of any other language in addition to the language required under this regulation.
3. Pre-packaged food shall not be described or presented on any label or in any labelling manner that is false, misleading or deceptive or is likely to create an erroneous impression regarding its character in any respect,
4. Label in pre-packaged foods shall be applied in such a manner that they will not become separated from the container;Digitally signed
VIRENDER by VIRENDER KUMAR KUMAR BANSAL Date: 2025.08.01 BANSAL 16:15:54 +0530 FSAT No.13/2024 Rajesh Subramaniam & Ors. Vs. Food Safety Officer Page 6 of 10
5. Contents on the label shall be clear, prominent, indelible and readily legible by the consumer under normal conditions of purchase and use;
6. Where the container is covered by a wrapper, the wrapper shall carry the necessary information or the label on the container shall be readily legible through the outer wrapper and not obscured by it;"
13. Ld. Chief PP for the FSO further submitted that the rule also provides that the label has to be in capital letters with respect to the details including the best before use. There are certain exemptions, which are provided under the Rule 2.6.1 which reads as under :
"2.6: Exemptions from labelling requirements- 2.6.1
1. Where the surface area of the package is not more than 100 square centimetres, the label of such package shall be exempted from the requirements of list of ingredients, Lot Number or Batch Number or Code Number, nutritional information and instructions for use, but these informations shall be given on the wholesale packages or multi piece packages, as the case may be.
2. The 'date of manufacture' or 'best before date' or 'expiry date' may not be required to be mentioned on the package having surface area of less than 30 square centimeters but these information shall be given on the wholesale packages or multipiece packages, as the case may be;
3. In case of liquid products marketed in bottles, if such bottle is intended to be reused for refilling, the requirement of list of ingredients shall be exempted, but the nutritional information specified in regulation 2.2.2.(3) these regulations shall be given on the label:
Provided that in case of such glass bottles manufactured after March 19, 2009, the list of ingredients and nutritional information shall be given on the bottle.
4. In case of food with shelf-life of not more than seven days, the 'date of manufacture' may not be required to be mentioned on the label of packaged food articles, but the 'use by date' shall be mentioned on the label by the Digitally signed by VIRENDER VIRENDER KUMAR KUMAR BANSAL Date:
BANSAL 2025.08.01
16:16:03 +0530
FSAT No.13/2024 Rajesh Subramaniam & Ors. Vs. Food Safety Officer Page 7 of 10
manufacturer or packer.
5. In case of multipiece packages the particulars regarding list of ingredients,nutritional information, Date of manufacture/packing, best before, expiry date labelling of irradiated food and, vegetarian logo/non vegetarian logo, may not be specified."
14. Ld. Chief PP for the FSO submitted that it does not apply to the present case as the case does not fall within the exceptions. Ld. Chief PP for the FSO submitted that that Rule 2.2.10 provides the best before and use by date be mentioned. Ld. Chief PP for the FSO submitted that admittedly it was not in capital letters and was in small letters and hence there was a violation.
"2.2.10
10. Best Before and Use By Date
(i) the month and year in capital letters upto which the product is best for consumption, in the following manner, namely:-
"BEST BEFORE ..... MONTHS AND YEAR"
OR "BEST BEFORE .... MONTHS FROM PACKAGING"
OR "BEST BEFORE .... MONTHS FROM MANUFACTURE"
(ii) In case of package or bottle containing sterilised or Ultra High Temperature treated milk, soya milk, flavoured milk, any package containing bread, dhokla, bhelpuri, pizza, doughnuts, khoa, paneer, or any uncanned package of fruits, vegetable, meat, fish or any other like commodity, the declaration be made as follows:-
"BEST BEFORE .....DATE/MONTH/YEAR"
OR "BEST BEFORE...... DAYS FROM PACKAGING"
OR "BEST BEFORE........ DAYS FROM MANUFACTURE"
Note.-
(a) blanks be filled-up
(b) Month and year may be used in numerals
Digitally signed
VIRENDER by VIRENDER
KUMAR KUMAR BANSAL
Date: 2025.08.01
BANSAL 16:16:12 +0530
FSAT No.13/2024 Rajesh Subramaniam & Ors. Vs. Food Safety Officer Page 8 of 10
(c) Year may be given in two digits
(iii) On packages of Aspartame, instead of Best Before date, Use by date/recommended last consumption date/expiry date shall be given, which shall not be more than three years from the date of packing;
(iv) In case of infant milk substitute and infant foods instead of Best Before date, Use by date/recommended last consumption date/expiry date shall be given:"
15. Ld. Chief PP for the FSO submitted that so far as the contention that they are protected U/s. 80(B)(2)(d)(i) FSS Act, 2006 is concerned, they cannot get protection of the same as this violation is evident on the face of it and if they would have been diligent, it would have been in their knowledge. Ld. Chief PP for the FSO in support of his arguments relied upon the judgment cited as Ardor Restaurant v. Bal Mukund, Food Safety Officer, [(2019) (197) AIC 617]. Ld. Chief PP for the FSO submitted that in view of this judgment, though they are not the manufacturers and they received it from the manufacturer, but were not diligent and hence they are liable. Ld. Chief PP for the FSO further submitted that it is not a minor labelling defect. Rules have to be followed by everybody and any person who has flouted the rules cannot escape by merely saying that it is a minor labelling defect. The Adjudicating Officer has considered this fact rightly and it is also admitted that though the date was mentioned, but was not in capital letters as required under law/regulation. There is no merit in the appeal. It is prayed that the appeal be dismissed.
16. After hearing the arguments and going through the record, I found that in this case pasta penne rigate was sold for human consumption by M/s. R.V. Cafe Pvt. Ltd. It was found that though the date, i.e. "best before use"
Digitally signed by VIRENDER VIRENDER KUMAR
KUMAR BANSAL
Date: 2025.08.01
BANSAL 16:16:22 +0530
FSAT No.13/2024 Rajesh Subramaniam & Ors. Vs. Food Safety Officer Page 9 of 10
was mentioned on the label, but as per the Regulations, it was required to be in capital letters so that the consumers are very well aware about the same. In this case, the date is although mentioned, but not as required under the Regulations. Hence, it is in violation of the Rules/Regulations of the Act. Merely by saying that it is a minor labelling defect will not absolve the appellants from their liability. The Adjudicating Authority has considered all these facts. So far as their contention that they are protected U/s. 80(B) (2) (d) (i) of the FSS Act, 2006, I found that this defect is visible and if they would have been diligent, they would have immediately noticed the same. It is required from every person who is selling/supplying or storing the articles used for human consumption to be diligent so that there is no harm caused to the consumers by selling/storing or manufacturing the sub standard/mis- branded articles. In this case, as the sample is mis-branded and rightly so the Adjudicating Officer has held them guilty and sentenced them. There is no merit in the appeal. Same is dismissed. Record of the Ld. ADM be returned along with copy of this judgment. Appeal file be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signed by VIRENDER VIRENDER KUMAR
KUMAR BANSAL
Date: 2025.08.01
BANSAL 16:16:31 +0530
Announced in the open (Virender Kumar Bansal)
Court on 01st August, 2025 Principal District & Sessions Judge
New Delhi District
Patiala House Courts, New Delhi
FSAT No.13/2024 Rajesh Subramaniam & Ors. Vs. Food Safety Officer Page 10 of 10