Section 80(4) in The Food Safety And Standards Act, 2006
(4)Without limiting the ways in which a person may satisfy the requirements of clause (1) and item (i) of sub-clause (b) of clause (2), a person may satisfy those requirements by proving that-(a)in the case of an offence relating to a food business for which a food safety programme is required to be prepared in accordance with the regulations, the person complied with a food safety programme for the food business that complies with the requirements of the regulations, or(b)in any other case, the person complied with a scheme (for example, a quality assurance programme or an industry code of practice) that was-(i)designed to manage food safety hazards and based on national or international standards, codes or guidelines designed for that purpose, and(C)Defence of mistaken and reasonable belief not available-(ii)documented in some manner.In any proceedings for an offence under the provisions of this Act, it is no defence that the defendant had a mistaken but reasonable belief as to the facts that constituted the offence.(D)Defence in respect of handling food-In proceedings for an offence under section 56, it is a defence if it is proved that the person caused the food to which the offence relates to be destroyed or otherwise disposed of immediately after the food was handled in the manner that was likely to render it unsafe.(E)Defences of significance of the nature, substance or quality of food-It shall be no defence in a prosecution for an offence pertaining to the sale of any unsafe or misbranded article of food to allege merely that the food business operator was ignorant of the nature, substance or quality of the food sold by him or that the purchaser having purchased any article for analysis was not prejudiced by the sale.
