M/S Parle Biscuit Pvt. Ltd vs Union Of India on 19 August, 2025

[Cites 27, Cited by 0]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

M/S Parle Biscuit Pvt. Ltd vs Union Of India on 19 August, 2025

Bench: Vishal Mishra

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:60826
WP No. 3956 of 2013 and other connected matters

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABA LPUR
BEFORE
HON'BL`E SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 19th OF AUGUST, 2025

WRIT PETITION No. 3956 of 2013
ITC LIMITED
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
......................................................................................................................................................................................

Appearance:
Shri Kishore Shrivastava - Senior Advocate with Shri Kunal Thakre,
Shri Kapil Jain & Shri Ankur Shrivastava - Advocates for petitioner.
Shri Vineet Singh - Govt. Advocate with Shri Arnav Tiwari - Panel
Lawyer for the respondents/State.
......................................................................................................................................................................................

WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 2093 of 2013
M/S PARLE PRODUCTS PVT LTD AND OTHERS
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
......................................................................................................................................................................................

Appearance:
Shri Jaideep Sirpurkar - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Vineet Singh - Govt. Advocate with Shri Arnav Tiwari - Panel
Lawyer for the respondents/State.
......................................................................................................................................................................................

WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 8258 of 2013
ITC LIMITED
Versus

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINOD
VISHWAKARMA
Signing time: 28-11-2025
12:48:23
2

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:60826
WP No. 3956 of 2013 and other connected matters

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
......................................................................................................................................................................................

Appearance:
Shri Kishore Shrivastava - Senior Advocate with Shri Kunal Thakre,
Shri Kapil Jain & Shri Ankur Shrivastava - Advocates for the petitioner.
Shri Vineet Singh - Govt. Advocate with Shri Arnav Tiwari - Panel
Lawyer for the respondents/State.
......................................................................................................................................................................................

WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 8544 of 2013
ITC LIMITED
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
......................................................................................................................................................................................

WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 8728 of 2013
BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LIMITED AND OTHERS
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
......................................................................................................................................................................................

Appearance:
Shri Rajesh Bohra with Shri Dhananjay Shrivastava - Advocates for
the petitioner.
Shri Vineet Singh - Govt. Advocate with Shri Arnav Tiwari - Panel
Lawyer for the respondents/State.
......................................................................................................................................................................................

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINOD
VISHWAKARMA
Signing time: 28-11-2025
12:48:23
3

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:60826
WP No. 3956 of 2013 and other connected matters

WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 8810 of 2013
SIDDHA SALES AND MARKETING AGENCY
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
......................................................................................................................................................................................

WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 9250 of 2013
M/S PARLE BISCUIT PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS
Versus
THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
......................................................................................................................................................................................

Appearance:
Shri Jaideep Sirpurkar - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Vineet Singh - Govt. Advocate with Shri Arnav Tiwari - Panel
Lawyer for the respondents/State.
......................................................................................................................................................................................

WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 9273 of 2013
ITC LIMITED
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

Appearance:
Shri Kishore Shrivastava - Senior Advocate with Shri Kunal Thakre,
Shri Kapil Jain & Shri Ankur Shrivastava - Advocates for the petitioner.

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINOD
VISHWAKARMA
Signing time: 28-11-2025
12:48:23
4

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:60826
WP No. 3956 of 2013 and other connected matters

Shri Vineet Singh - Govt. Advocate with Shri Arnav Tiwari - Panel
Lawyer for the respondents/State.
......................................................................................................................................................................................

WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 12487 of 2013
M/S PARLE BISCUIT PVT. LTD AND OTHERS
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
......................................................................................................................................................................................

WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 15273 of 2013
BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LIMITED AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
......................................................................................................................................................................................

WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 15831 of 2013
ITC LIMITED
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
......................................................................................................................................................................................

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINOD
VISHWAKARMA
Signing time: 28-11-2025
12:48:23
5

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:60826
WP No. 3956 of 2013 and other connected matters

WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 18070 of 2013
MAHENDRA JAIN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
......................................................................................................................................................................................

WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 18813 of 2013
ITC LIMITED KOLKATA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
......................................................................................................................................................................................

WITH

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINOD
VISHWAKARMA
Signing time: 28-11-2025
12:48:23
6

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:60826
WP No. 3956 of 2013 and other connected matters

WRIT PETITION No. 21029 of 2013
M/S PARLE BISCUIT PVT. LTD AND OTHERS
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
......................................................................................................................................................................................

WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 700 of 2014
ITC LIMITED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SHRI MURALI
GANESAN
Versus
FOOD SAFATY OFFICER THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
AND OTHERS
......................................................................................................................................................................................

WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 4883 of 2014
RASHID ZAFAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
......................................................................................................................................................................................

Appearance:
Shri Kishore Shrivastava - Senior Advocate with Shri Kunal Thakre,
Shri Kapil Jain & Shri Ankur Shrivastava - Advocates for the petitioner.

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINOD
VISHWAKARMA
Signing time: 28-11-2025
12:48:23
7

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:60826
WP No. 3956 of 2013 and other connected matters

WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 5300 of 2014
SHIREESH KUMAR JAIN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
......................................................................................................................................................................................

WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 7937 of 2014
BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LIMITED AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
......................................................................................................................................................................................

WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 11022 of 2014
KAMAL CHAWLA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
......................................................................................................................................................................................

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINOD
VISHWAKARMA
Signing time: 28-11-2025
12:48:23
8

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:60826
WP No. 3956 of 2013 and other connected matters

WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 11023 of 2014
ITC LIMITED
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
......................................................................................................................................................................................

WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 13137 of 2014
M/S PARLE BISCUIT PVT LTD AND OTHERS
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
......................................................................................................................................................................................

WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 14150 of 2014

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINOD
VISHWAKARMA
Signing time: 28-11-2025
12:48:23
9

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:60826
WP No. 3956 of 2013 and other connected matters

MOHIT TRADERS BEHIND ANMOL HOTEL NEAR BUDHAR
CHAUK SHAHDOL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
......................................................................................................................................................................................

WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 6409 of 2015
BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LIMKITED AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
......................................................................................................................................................................................

WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 17821 of 2015
M/S PARLE BISCUIT PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
......................................................................................................................................................................................

Appearance:
Shri Jaideep Sirpurkar - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Vineet Singh - Govt. Advocate with Shri Arnav Tiwari - Panel
Lawyer for the respondents/State.

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINOD
VISHWAKARMA
Signing time: 28-11-2025
12:48:23
10

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:60826
WP No. 3956 of 2013 and other connected matters

......................................................................................................................................................................................

WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 18209 of 2015
M/S PARLE BISCUITS PVT LTD. AND OTHERS
Versus
THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
......................................................................................................................................................................................

WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 2803 of 2016
M/S PARLE PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS
Versus
THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
......................................................................................................................................................................................

AND
WRIT PETITION No. 17415 of 2017
M/S PARLE BISCUIT PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
......................................................................................................................................................................................

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINOD
VISHWAKARMA
Signing time: 28-11-2025
12:48:23
11

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:60826
WP No. 3956 of 2013 and other connected matters

ORDER

This common order shall govern disposal of the aforesaid writ petitions, as the question of law and facts involved herein, are similar. For the sake of convenience and in order to effectively address the issue involved herein, the facts relevant for adjudication are being culled out and taken from WP No. 3956 of 2013.

2. The petition being WP No. 3956 of 2013 has been filed against the arbitrary and illegal action of the respondents as disclosed in the impugned order dated 21.12.2012 (Annexure P/4) whereby the respondent No.2/Designated Officer & Chief Medical and Health Officer, Food Safety Administration, Jabalpur has granted sanction to initiate proceedings against the petitioner and other co-accused without application of mind; only on the basis of report of the Food Analyst which did not disclose any offence. The petitioner is also assailing the proceedings initiated against him in pursuance to the aforesaid sanction before the Court of the Additional Collector, District Jabalpur registered as Case No. 207/Pravachak/13 (State of Madhya Pradesh vs A.K. Bhatia and others) vide Annexure P/5.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is an existing Company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Virginia House 37, Jawaharlal Nehru Road, Kolkata 700 071. The petition being WP No. 3956 of 2013 has been filed through Shri Murali Ganesan who has been duly appointed vide deed dated 22.05.2008 as a power of attorney holder of the petitioner and to take all the activities and to file documents or to initiate any legal proceedings or to defend the legal proceedings before the competent Court. The petitioner Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD VISHWAKARMA Signing time: 28-11-2025 12:48:23 12 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:60826 WP No. 3956 of 2013 and other connected matters is engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing of various packaged food products including biscuits under the brand name 'Sunfeast'. The petitioner uses products of world-class quality, cutting-edge technology and product innovation, meeting exact standards of the food safety and hygiene in manufacturing biscuits.

4. It is submitted that the petitioner is taking all possible steps to check the quality performance of all manufacturing units including the Unit in which the biscuits are manufactured. The petitioner is engaged in manufacturing and marketing of various packaged food products including biscuits under the brand name of 'Sunfeast' in the year 2003. The petitioner established itself as one of the leading biscuit brands and is the member of the Federation of Biscuits Manufacturers' of India, an apex body of biscuit industries. They are making more than 26 varieties of biscuits which are manufactured and sold under the brand name of 'Sunfeast'. The standards as stipulated for biscuits under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 are in pari materia to the standards as was stipulated for Biscuits under Rule 5, Appendix B.A.18.07 Biscuits including wafer biscuits of the erstwhile Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. They are being marketed and sold in compliance of the standards as provided under the Food Safety and Standards (Food Products Standards and Food Additives) Regulations, 2011. The raw materials are also analysed through NABL accredited external laboratories, once every six months in terms of the Food Safety and Standards (Registration and Licencing) Regulations, 2011.

5. As per the notification issued by the Ministry of Health under the Prevention of Food Alteration Act, 1954 vide GSR 664(E) dated 19.09.2008 pertaining to labeling of packages, the ingredients panel in the Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD VISHWAKARMA Signing time: 28-11-2025 12:48:23 13 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:60826 WP No. 3956 of 2013 and other connected matters label is the critical and primary source of information to the consumers. It is the ingredient panel that the consumer relies on to take an informed decision on whether or not to purchase the particular food article. The ingredients and the nutritional information as listed on the label of 'Sunfeast Dream Cream Chocolate and Vanilla' are as follows : Ingredients : wheat flour, sugar, edible vegetable oil, hydrogenated vegetable oils, milk solids, cocoa solids, starch, invert syrup, raising agents (INS 503(ii), baking powder), dextrose, edible common salt, dark chocolate (0.33%) and emulsifier (ins 322) and it contains permitted natural colour(s) (INS 150d) and synthetic food colour(s) (INS 133, INS 124) and added flavour(s); artificial flavouring substances - vanilla milk, chocolate & mint and nature identical flavoring substances - butter, chocolate and vanilla. Similar declarations for ingredients as well as nutritional information are made on all the biscuits packages including the samples picked by the respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 has picked up samples of Sunfeast Dream Cream Biscuits from retail premises of Bhatia Dry Fruits Centre, Marhatal Jabalpur on 04.04.2012 and issued notice in Form VA under Rule 2.4.1(3) of the Food Safety and Standard Rules, 2011 to the retailer namely A.K. Bhatia. The notice issued by respondent No.2 does not reveal the name of the actual product sample picked and simply states 'Sunfeast Dream Cream' biscuit. The petitioner-company manufactures and markets several varieties of biscuits under the brand name of 'Sunfeast Dream Cream' and in absence of the complete particulars, it is very difficult to understand which product is actually picked up by respondent No.1 under the said notice. Further, Rule 2.4.1(3) of the Food Safety and Standard Rules, 2011 mandates that the Food Safety Officer to issue notice under Form VA to the food business operator from whom the sample is collected containing Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD VISHWAKARMA Signing time: 28-11-2025 12:48:23 14 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:60826 WP No. 3956 of 2013 and other connected matters the specific details of the product picked for analysis. Under Rule 2.1.4(2)(ii) of the Rules, the Food Analyst is required to provide his analysis report under Form VIIA which requires specific details in relation to the product to be indicated. Neither the notice under Form VA nor the Food Analyst Report issued under Form VIIA of the Rules of 2011 which provides basic mandated information such as complete product name, physical appearance of sample etc. to enable the petitioner to identify which product was being picked up and sent for analysis. Thus, the petitioner has been deprived of his mandated rights under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and thereby denying him an opportunity of effective representation before the authorities. The Food Safety Officer is immediately required to serve a notice in Form VA to the Food Business Operator. However, in the present case, the petitioner till date is not in receipt of such notice in Form VA. The petitioner has not been furnished with the Food Analyst Report and has been deprived of statutory right of appeal as provided under Section 46(4) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.

6. It is argued that the biscuits which are manufactured by the petitioner and picked for analysis have an expiry date of six months from the date of manufacture and in the instant case, the samples were collected on 04.04.2012, hence, by the time they were sent for analysis and the report being received must have surpassed the expiry date. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be held responsible for the same. Even otherwise, the petitioner was not being provided with an opportunity to even file an appeal or to represent against the report submitted by the Food Analyst. Thus, valuable right to have sample analyzed through NABL accredited/FSSAI notified laboratory was not given to the petitioner. The Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD VISHWAKARMA Signing time: 28-11-2025 12:48:23 15 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:60826 WP No. 3956 of 2013 and other connected matters respondent has submitted the sample for analysis to the Food Analyst, State Food Testing Laboratory, Bhopal. The Food Analyst has provided his report declaring the said sample of 'Sunfeast Dream Cream Biscuits' to be 'misbranded' without providing any reason in the report as to why he is declaring the sample as 'misbranded'. The report does not provide any further reasoning as to why the said food item has been declared to be 'misbranded'. The report was submitted on 19.04.2012.

7. It is argued that the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 gives a definition of 'misbranded foods' in terms of Section 3(zf) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. If the definition of 'misbranded food' is applied to the report which has been submitted by the Food Analyst, it is clear that the Food Analyst Report is totally silent as to why the sample is misbranded; thus, the aforesaid provisions are violated. In view of the said report, the respondent No.2 has accorded sanction to the respondent No.1 under Section 36(3)(e) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 to initiate prosecution for the offence of misbranding under Section 26(2)(ii) read with Sections 52 and 55 of the Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006 against the petitioner, its manufacturing Unit Haridwar, Unit-in-charge Haridwar and its director, partners vide order dated 21.12.2012.

8. It is also argued that the Government has issued a notification with respect to the samples to be analysed at the certified/notified laboratories. The 'food laboratory' is defined in terms of Section 2(p) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. Section 43 thereof provides for recognition and accreditation of laboratories, research institutions and referral food laboratories. Considering the aforesaid, the Government has issued a notification authorizing certain laboratories for analysing the food samples. The food sample, in the present case, has been analysed at laboratory Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD VISHWAKARMA Signing time: 28-11-2025 12:48:23 16 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:60826 WP No. 3956 of 2013 and other connected matters situated in Bhopal which is not a recognised laboratory. Initially, when the Food Safety and Standards Act and the Rules/Regulations were framed and notified in the year 2011, no laboratories were notified. Hence, it was clarified by notification dated 05.07.2011 issued by the Director, Food Safety & Standards Authority of India that the existing Public Food Testing Laboratories which are testing food samples under the PFA will continue to perform their function of food testing under Section 98 of FSS Act, 2006 till any notification is issued under Section 43 of FSS Act, 2006.

9. This makes it abundantly clear from the notification that the Public Food Testing Laboratories were permitted to test food samples only till the notification is issued under Section 43 of FSS Act, 2006. Subsequently, notification dated 12.04.2012 was issued notifying laboratories accredited by National Accreditation Board for Testing Calibration Laboratories (NABL) for the purpose of carrying out analysis of the samples of Food Analyst under the FSS Act. The said notification was for a period of one year from 12.04.2012 to 11.04.2013 or till discontinuation of NABL Accreditation whichever is earlier. Under the said notification dated 12.04.2012, 16 laboratories were notified for the Western Region (Gujarat, Maharashtra, Dadar and Nagar Haveli, Daman and Diu, Goa & Madhya Pradesh) and out of that, three are in Madhya Pradesh i.e. SGS India, Indore, Cali Labs Pvt. Ltd. Bhopal and Choksi Lab Ltd. Indore.

10. With the issuance of the said notification, the Public Food Testing Laboratories automatically ceased to have powers to test food samples collected under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. The subsequent notifications were issued from time to time and the last notification was published on 06.12.2016 in the Gazette of India. Earlier notification dated 13.07.2016 was published on 15.07.2016 in the Gazette of India and in Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD VISHWAKARMA Signing time: 28-11-2025 12:48:23 17 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:60826 WP No. 3956 of 2013 and other connected matters pursuance to which order dated 13.11.2016 was issued. Three laboratories as pointed out in the notification were continued with the latest addition of QTTL Lab Pvt. Ltd. Indore which are collectively filed as Annexure P/10.

11. In the present case, testing of the food article collected by the Food Safety Officer was not done by the competent laboratory having jurisdiction to deal with food articles and the report of the Food Analyst was submitted which is beyond the jurisdiction. Under these circumstances, the same cannot be taken note of for the purpose of granting sanction for prosecution. It is contended that the State Food Testing Laboratory is not the competent laboratory accredited by the National Accreditation Board for Testing Calibration Laboratories (NABL) and not recognized by the Food Safety and Standard Authority of India under Section 43 of the FSS Act, therefore, the Food Analyst Report is not a proper report and could not be taken note of for granting sanction for prosecution.

12. On these grounds, the challenge is made to the grant of sanction as well as the subsequent proceedings taken up by the authorities in pursuance thereto. Petitioner's counsel has relied upon the order passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of ITC Ltd vs State of M.P. :

WP No. 2665 of 2013 (Gwalior) decided on 27.11.2024 which deals with the similar issue raised herein and also with respect to the Company who was indulged in manufacturing of biscuits in the brand name of 'Sunfeast' as in the present case.

13. Petitioner's counsel has also relied upon the order passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court at Indore in the case of Madhusudan Modi vs State of M.P. : WP No. 6416 of 2018 decided on 09.08.2018 and again in the case of ITC Limited vs State of M.P. : WP No. 5427 of 2016 Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD VISHWAKARMA Signing time: 28-11-2025 12:48:23 18 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:60826 WP No. 3956 of 2013 and other connected matters (Indore) decided on 17.04.2017 and the judgment passed by the Bombay High Court in the case of M/s Nestle India Limited vs The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India and others reported in 2015 SCC OnLine Bom 4713. On these grounds, it is argued that as the very initiation of the criminal proceedings by grant of sanction is illegal, therefore, all subsequent proceedings are void ab initio and should be quashed.

14. To buttress his submissions, counsel appearing for the petitioner has further relied upon various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur vs State of Punjab reported in AIR 1960 SC 866, M/s Pepsi Foods Limited vs Special Judicial Magistrate reported in AIR 1998 SC 128, Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs Shri Kacheroo Mal reported in (1976) 1 SCC 412 as well as the judgment of the Gauhati High Court in the case of Glaxo India Ltd. State of Assam reported in 2003(1) GLT 122. On these grounds, he has prayed for quashment of the impugned sanction order as well as all subsequent proceedings initiated against the petitioner.

15. On notice being issued, a detailed reply has been filed by the respondents-authorities. They have denied the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and has adopted the return filed in the case of ITC Ltd. vs State of M.P. : WP No. 9273 of 2013. It is contended that petitioner is trying to say that their products are in conformity with the specification provided under Rule 5 Appendix B.A 18.07 of the erstwhile Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, which are pari materia to the standards as was stipulated for the Rules and Regulation but the petitioner is not mentioning the fact that Rule 5 of the Rules of 1955 defined 'cream' including sterilized cream which means product of cow or buffalo milk or a combination thereof. It shall be free from starch and other ingredients foreign to milk, namely, (i) low-fat cream, (ii) medium-fat cream and (iii) Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD VISHWAKARMA Signing time: 28-11-2025 12:48:23 19 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:60826 WP No. 3956 of 2013 and other connected matters high-fat cream. Cream sold without any indication about milk fat content shall be treated as high-fat cream. Rule 44 of Rules of 1955 categorically prohibits 'cream' which are not being prepared exclusively from milk or which contains less than 25 percent of milk fat. The provision of Rule 2.4.5 defines 'bakery' provides that one of the ingredients can be milk and milk product. Cream is a milk product has been defined under Regulation 2.1.2 of the Regulation, 2011. Petitioner was required to show that the cream as has been mentioned by them on the wrapper is of the specification as mentioned in Appendix B.A.11.02.02 of Rules of 1955. If these parameters are not set as is apparent from the report of the Food Analyst, then it can be safely concluded that the product is 'misbranded' in which cream has been sought to be imitated which is not permissible under Rule 44 of the Rules of 1955. It is contended that Clause 2.1.1 provides sale of certain admixture products, as in the present case, the report of Food Analyst clearly demonstrates that B.R. reading of extracted fat at 40 degree Celsius from cream portion gave a result of 48.0 using DGHS manual which demonstrates that so-called cream portion is not cream as B.R. reading of cream at 40 degree Celsius should be between 40 to 45 as per Regulation 2.1.10.2.3. It is further contended that the proceedings have been taken up against the petitioner in terms of the Food Safety Rules and Regulations. There is no deviation from any of the Rules in the present case.

16. It is further contended that in addition to the general labeling requirements, safety in Regulation 2.2.2, every package of food shall carry the information i.e. name of food shall include trade name, description of food contained in the package. In the present case, trade name is 'Sunfeast' and the description of food is 'cream chocolate and vanilla'. Food article Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD VISHWAKARMA Signing time: 28-11-2025 12:48:23 20 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:60826 WP No. 3956 of 2013 and other connected matters has been described to be given an impression to have contained cream chocolate and vanilla. Then, in fact, it should contain cream, chocolate and vanilla. In the present case, the said was not a situation. Thus, the petitioner cannot escape from his liability by saying that label of ingredient is on what the consumer relies has to take informed decision. In fact, it is a misnomer. The respondents are enclosing two labels of Sunfeast biscuits procured from the market which demonstrate that emphasis is on choco cream for orange cream as it is mentioned at more than one place on the label. Even the size of the letters used to depict or highlight the choco cream or orange cream is in larger font than the ingredients in the label. Thus, the provisions of the Food Safety Act are clearly violated in the matter by the petitioner company. Under these circumstances, they are required to be prosecuted.

17. The contention raised by the petitioner that the testing has not been done from the authorized laboratory, is also not available to him because the entire proceedings have been drawn against the petitioner in terms of the earlier notification which does not give recognition to any of the laboratories. Rather, the laboratories which were being used for food safety products were authorized to do the analysis of the food products seized in terms of the notification issued in the year 2011.

18. Under these circumstances, no illegality is committed by the authorities. The petitioner himself has chosen not to challenge the Food Analyst report before the appropriate forum, rather, he has chosen to directly approach this Court by filing this petition. Therefore, the argument advanced before this Court that the mandatory provision for filing an appeal the petitioner is deprived of his rights, is not available to the petitioner. He has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition, placing reliance Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD VISHWAKARMA Signing time: 28-11-2025 12:48:23 21 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:60826 WP No. 3956 of 2013 and other connected matters upon the judgments passed by the Supreme Court with respect to initiation of criminal proceedings and has argued that the proceedings are at the initial stage, therefore, this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not interfere in such proceedings even against an order granting sanction, the petition directly before this Court will not be maintainable. Once the Court is seized with the complaint, the petitioner can file a reply to the competent court who can analyze the entire case and could have passed a final judgment in the matter. But as the proceedings are at the initial stage, the defense raised by the petitioner should not be considered in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He has prayed for dismissal of the petition.

19. Rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner to counter reply submitted by the respondents stating therein that the entire proceedings have been commenced against the petitioner on the basis of the report of Food Analyst dated 19.04.2012 opining that the samples of Sunfeast Dream Cream Biscuit is 'misbranded'. Though as is apparent from the report of Food Analyst, the same tested is found to be in conformity with the stipulated standards; therefore, the action of the respondents is not justified. The opinion of the Food Analyst is without any reasoning. It is submitted that the entire proceedings against the petitioner have been initiated without complying with the prescribed procedure under the FSS Act as well as the Rules and Regulations framed thereunder. Neither the report of the Food Analyst nor the sanction order or the complaint filed against the petitioner provides any reason as to why the sample has been found to be misbranded. To invoke the offence of misbranding, it must be established that the contravention complained of took place in terms of Section 3(zf) of the FSS Act. It is submitted that the report of the Food Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD VISHWAKARMA Signing time: 28-11-2025 12:48:23 22 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:60826 WP No. 3956 of 2013 and other connected matters Analyst simply mentions 'Sunfeast Dream Cream' while there are many categories of biscuits under this trade name; therefore, it is prayed that the prosecution against the petitioner is to be quashed in the facts and circumstances of the case.

20. Heard learned counsels of the parties and perused the record.

21. As regards the argument with respect to availability of alternative and efficacious remedy, this Court is not impressed much less convinced with the argument regarding the same. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai, (1998) 8 SCC 1 has held as under:-

"Much water has since flown beneath the bridge, but there has been no corrosive effect on these decisions which though old, continue to hold the field with the result that law as to the jurisdiction of the High Court in entertaining a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, in spite of the alternative statutory remedies, is not affected, specially in a case where the authority against whom the Writ is filed is shown to have had no jurisdiction or had purported to usurp jurisdiction without any legal foundation."

22. If the aforesaid principles are applied to the facts and circumstances of the case, coupled with the fact that the writ petition was filed way back in the year 2013 and there is an interim order dated 26.04.2013 prevailing in the writ petition (WP No. 3956 of 2013) granted by this Court staying the prosecution of the petitioner in pursuance to Annexure P/4 and P/5; after a period of more than 12 years, the petition cannot be thrown out on the ground of alternative and efficacious remedy. Therefore, this Court is inclined to hear the petition(s) on merits.

23. Challenge in the petition being WP No. 3956 of 2013 is made to the sanction order granted by the authorities for prosecuting the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that grant of sanction is not a mere formality.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD VISHWAKARMA Signing time: 28-11-2025 12:48:23 23

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:60826 WP No. 3956 of 2013 and other connected matters Several procedures are required to be complied with by the authorities prior to grant of sanction for prosecution under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. The petitioner is dealing in the business of manufacturing and marketing of various packaged food including biscuits under the brand name of 'Sunfeast'. The samples for the Sunfeast biscuits were collected from Bhatia Dry Fruits Centre on 04.04.2012 and were sent for analysis to the State Food Testing Laboratory, Bhopal. Under Section 43 of the Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006, the food authorities have notified food laboratories accredited by National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration Laboratories (NABL) for the purpose of carrying out analysis of samples by the Food Analysts and in terms of the said information for the Western Region and where State of Madhya Pradesh falls, total 16 laboratories have been notified and held eligible for carrying out the analysis of the samples. Initially, vide notification dated 12.04.2012, the authorisation was granted for a period of one year from 12.04.2012 to 11.04.2013 or till the discontinuation of NABL Accreditation, whichever was earlier. Later on, by subsequent Notification dated 13.07.2016 which has not been turned down or modified by the authorities, the laboratories for State of Madhya Pradesh notified for the purpose of carrying out samples by the food analyst are as under :

1 Choksi Laboratories Limited, Indore Chemical Reg. No. 1/W/FSSAI/2014 Biological 6/3, Manoramaganj, Indore - 452001, M.P. 2 Cali-Labs Private Limited, Bhopal Chemical Reg. No. 12/W/FSSAI/2014 Biological HX-21, E-7, Arera Colony, Bhopal - 462016, M.P. 3 SGS India Private Limited, Indore Chemical Reg. No. 9/W/FSSAI/2014 Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD VISHWAKARMA Signing time: 28-11-2025 12:48:23 24 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:60826 WP No. 3956 of 2013 and other connected matters 1-B Press Complex, A. B. Road, Indore-452008, M.P. 4 QTTL Lab Private Limited, Indore Chemical Reg. No. 28/W/FSSAI/2016 Biological 301-302 Labbaiq Regency, 4/2 Old Palasia, Indore -

452009, M.P.

24. The sample collected can only be analysed by the aforesaid notified laboratories in the State of Madhya Pradesh. In the present case, the testing has been carried out by the State Food Testing Laboratory, Bhopal. Admittedly, the State Food Testing Laboratory Bhopal is not one of the laboratories which was accredited by National Accreditation Board at the relevant time when the samples were collected. Therefore, it cannot be said to be a laboratory recognised for the food authority in terms of Section 43(1) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. The said laboratory is not established or notified by the Central/State Government with respect to Rule 2.4.2(2) of the Food Safety and Standards Rules, 2011. Therefore, any report given by the said laboratory declaring the sample of the petitioner to be 'misbranded' lose its significance and cannot be used for the purpose of grant of sanction for prosecution of the petitioner. The food analyst report which is a very foundation of launching the prosecution against the petitioner cannot be relied upon as the said report has not been given and prepared by the notified laboratory.

25. For a proper appreciation of the controversy at hand, the details of all the writ petitions as well as that of food sample collected, date of receipt and the report of Food Analyst etc. are being reproduced in a tabular form so as to facilitate the pleadings :

Sl. WP No. Details of Food Date of Findings of Name of Whether No. Sample receipt of Food Food Food Lab sample by Analyst and Laboratory FSSAI Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD VISHWAKARMA Signing time: 28-11-2025 12:48:23 25 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:60826 WP No. 3956 of 2013 and other connected matters Food date of Notified Analyst report and NABL Accredited 1 3956 of Sunfeast Misbranded State Food NO 2013 Dream Cream and Testing Biscuits 07.04.2012 19.04.2012 Laboratory, Bhopal 2 2093 of Parle Elaichi Misbranded State Food NO 2013 Flavoured and Testing Cream Biscuits 08.02.2012 21.02.2012 Laboratory, Bhopal 3 8258 of Sunfeast Misbranded State Food NO 2013 Dream Cream and Testing Strawberry and 31.05.2012 12.06.2012 Laboratory, Vanilla Bhopal Biscuits 4 8544 of Sunfeast Misbranded State Food NO 2013 Dream Cream and Testing Chocolate and 26.03.2012 05.04.2012 Laboratory, Vanilla Bhopal Biscuits 5 8728 of Britannia Tiger Misbranded State Food NO 2013 Orange Cream and Testing Biscuit 13.02.2012 24.02.2012 Laboratory, Bhopal 6 8810 of Sunfeast Misbranded State Food NO 2013 Special Tasty and Testing Orange Cream 16.02.2012 24.02.2012 Laboratory, Biscuit Bhopal 7 9250 of Parle Elaichi Misbranded State Food NO 2013 Flavoured and Testing Cream Biscuits 13.02.2012 24.02.2012 Laboratory, Bhopal 8 9273 of Sunfeast Misbranded State Food NO 2013 Special Tasty and Testing Orange Cream 29.02.2012 13.03.2012 Laboratory, Biscuit Bhopal 9 12487 of Parle Elaichi Misbranded State Food NO 2013 Flavoured and Testing Cream Biscuits 09.03.2012 22.03.2012 Laboratory, Bhopal 10 15273 of Britannia Misbranded State Food NO 2013 Orange and Testing Flavoured 21.02.2012 22.03.2012 Laboratory, Cream Biscuit Bhopal 11 15831 of Sunfeast Misbranded State Food NO 2013 Dream Cream and Testing Biscuits 26.03.2012 05.04.2012 Laboratory, Bhopal 12 18070 of Sunfeast Misbranded State Food NO Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD VISHWAKARMA Signing time: 28-11-2025 12:48:23 26 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:60826 WP No. 3956 of 2013 and other connected matters 2013 Dream Cream and Testing Biscuits 01.06.2012 14.06.2012 Laboratory, Bhopal 13 18813 of Sunfeast Misbranded State Food NO 2013 Special Tasty and Testing Elaichi Cream 29.06.2012 14.07.2012 Laboratory, Biscuit Bhopal 14 21029 of Parle Orange Misbranded State Food NO 2013 Flavoured and Testing Cream Biscuits 14.08.2012 24.08.2012 Laboratory, Bhopal 15 700 of Sunfeast Misbranded State Food NO 2014 Special Tasty and Testing Orange Cream 08.10.2012 19.10.2012 Laboratory, Biscuit Bhopal 16 4883 of Sunfeast Misbranded State Food NO 2014 Dream Cream and Testing Biscuit 07.11.2012 20.12.2012 Laboratory, Bhopal 17 5300 of Sunfeast Misbranded State Food NO 2014 Orange Cream and Testing Biscuit 02.04.2013 15.04.2013 Laboratory, Bhopal 18 7937 of Britannia Milk Misbranded State Food NO 2014 Cream Biscuit and Testing 30.08.2012 12.09.2012 Laboratory, Bhopal 19 11022 of Sunfeast Misbranded State Food NO 2014 Strawberry and Testing Cream Biscuit 03.06.2013 13.06.2013 Laboratory, Bhopal 20 11023 of Sunfeast Misbranded State Food NO 2014 Special Tasty and Testing Orange Cream 04.05.2013 17.05.2013 Laboratory, Biscuit Bhopal 21 13137 of Parle Misbranded State Food NO 2014 Pineapple and Testing Cream Biscuit 16.01.2012 28.01.2012 Laboratory, Bhopal 22 14150 of Sunfeast Misbranded State Food NO 2014 Special Tasty and Testing Orange Cream 28.12.2012 08.01.2013 Laboratory, Biscuit Bhopal 23 6409 of Britannia Tiger Misbranded State Food NO 2015 Orange Cream and Testing Biscuit 15.06.2012 29.06.2012 Laboratory, Bhopal 24 17821 of Parle Orange Misbranded State Food NO 2015 Flavoured and Testing Cream Biscuits 19.01.2012 30.01.2012 Laboratory, Bhopal Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD VISHWAKARMA Signing time: 28-11-2025 12:48:23 27 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:60826 WP No. 3956 of 2013 and other connected matters 25 18209 of Parle chocolate Misbranded State Food NO 2015 cookies and Testing Biscuits 04.07.2014 17.07.2014 Laboratory, Bhopal 26 2803 of Parle Top Misbranded State Food NO 2016 Biscuits and Testing

26.06.2014 09.07.2014 Laboratory, Bhopal 27 17415 of Parle Cream Misbranded State Food NO 2017 Orange and Testing Flavored 29.02.2012 13.03.2012 Laboratory, Biscuits Bhopal

26. From the aforesaid, it is clear that testing of food articles collected by the Food Analyst was done at State Food Testing Laboratory, Bhopal which is not in the list of the laboratories accredited by the National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration Laboratories for the purposes of carrying out analysis of food samples taken under Section 47 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. As mentioned above, there are only four laboratories in the State of Madhya Pradesh for the purposes of carrying out analysis of food sample; they are (i) Choksi Laboratories Limited, Indore, (ii) Cali-Labs Private Limited, Bhopal, (iii) SGS India Private Limited, Indore, (iv) QTTL Lab Private Limited, Indore. Therefore, the report from the State Food Testing Laboratory, Bhopal is not admissible.

27. Rule 2.4.3 of the Food Safety and Standards Rules, 2011 provides that a Designated Officer after receipt of the report on the food analysis is required to forward the sample for referral laboratory for analysis. If the referral laboratory reports that the sample of food is unsafe, substandard or misbranded or contains extraneous matter, then the case will be referred to the adjudication officer, but in absence of report from the referral laboratory that the sample was misbranded reference by the designated officer to the adjudication officer is contrary to Rule 2.4.3 of Food Safety Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD VISHWAKARMA Signing time: 28-11-2025 12:48:23 28 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:60826 WP No. 3956 of 2013 and other connected matters and Standards Rules, 2011 itself and was totally unwarranted. Similarly, Rule 2.4.5 of the Food Safety and Standards Rules, 2011 provides that the food business operator has a right to have the food analysed. If the procedure is not followed, then the entire exercise carried out by the respondents for prosecuting the petitioner is itself illegal. The notices are required to be sent to the petitioner whereas in the present case, no notice was sent to the petitioner. It was only sent to the Agent. Secondly, the sample report declares the food article to be 'misbranded'.

28. The word 'misbranded' as defined under Clause (ix) of Section 2 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 reads thus :

"(ix) "misbranded"--an article of food shall be deemed to be misbranded-

(a) if it is an imitation of, or is a substitute for, or resembles in a manner likely to deceive, another article of food under the name of which it is sold, and is not plainly and conspicuously labelled so as to indicate its true character;

(b) if it is falsely stated to be the product of any place or country;

(c) if it is sold by a name which belongs to another article of food;

(d) if it is so coloured, flavoured or coated, powdered or polished that the fact that the article is damaged is concealed or if the articles is made to appear better or of greater value than it really is;

(e) if false claims are made for it upon the label or otherwise;

(f) if, when sold in packages which have been sealed or prepared by or at the instance of the manufacturer or producer and which bear his name and address, the contents of each package are not conspicuously and correctly stated on the outside thereof within the limits of variability prescribed under this Act;

(g) if the package containing it, or the label on the package bears any statement, design or device regarding the ingredients or the substances contained therein, which is false or misleading in any material particular; or if the package is otherwise deceptive with respect to its contents;

(h) if the package containing it or the label on the package bears the name of a fictitious individual or company as the manufacturer or producer of the article;

(i) if it purports to be, or is represented as being, for special dietary uses, unless its label bears such information as may be prescribed concerning its vitamin, mineral, or other dietary properties in order sufficiently to inform its purchaser as to its value for such uses;

Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD VISHWAKARMA Signing time: 28-11-2025 12:48:23 29

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:60826 WP No. 3956 of 2013 and other connected matters

(j) if it contains any artificial flavouring, artificial colouring or chemical preservative, without a declaratory label stating that fact, or in contravention of the requirements of this Act or rules made thereunder;

(k) if it is not labelled in accordance with the requirements of this Act or rules made thereunder;"

29. The corresponding provision under the FSS Act, 2006 is clause (zf) of Section 3 which defines "misbranded food" and reads thus:

"(zf) "misbranded food" means an article of food- (A) if it is purported, or is represented to be, or is being-

(i) offered or promoted for sale with false, misleading or deceptive claims either;

(a) upon the label of the package, or

(b) through advertisement, or

(ii) sold by a name which belongs to another article of food; or

(iii) offered or promoted for sale under the name of a fictitious individual or company as the manufacturer or producer of the article as borne on the package or containing the article or the label on such package; or (B) if the article is sold in packages which have been sealed or prepared by or at the instance of the manufacturer or producer bearing his name and address but-

(i) the article is an imitation of, or is a substitute for, or resembles in a manner likely to deceive, another article of food under the name of which it is sold, and is not plainly and conspicuously labelled so as to indicate its true character; or

(ii) the package containing the article or the label on the package bears any statement, design or device regarding the ingredients or the substances contained therein, which is false or misleading in any material particular, or if the package is otherwise deceptive with respect to its contents; or (iii) the article is offered for sale as the product of any place or country which is false; or (C) if the article contained in the package-

(i) contains any artificial flavouring, colouring or chemical preservative and the package is without a declaratory label stating that fact or is not labelled in accordance with the requirements of this Act or regulations made thereunder or is in contravention thereof; or

(ii) is offered for sale for special dietary uses, unless its label bears such information as may be specified by regulation, concerning its vitamins, minerals or other dietary properties in order sufficiently to inform its purchaser as to its value for such use; or

(iii) is not conspicuously or correctly stated on the outside thereof within the limits of variability laid down under this Act."

30. Rule 2.1.4 of the Food Safety and Standards Rules, 2011 defines qualification and duties of Food Analyst which stipulate as under :

Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD VISHWAKARMA Signing time: 28-11-2025 12:48:23 30

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:60826 WP No. 3956 of 2013 and other connected matters

1. Qualification.--A person shall not be qualified for appointment as Food Analyst under the Act unless she/he -

(i) holds a Bachelor's or Master's or Doctorate degree in Chemistry or Biochemistry or microbiology or Dairy Chemistry or Agriculture Science or Animal Science or Fisheries Science or Biotechnology or Food safety or Food Technology, Food and Nutrition or Dairy Technology or Oil Technology or Veterinary Sciences from a university established in India by law or is an associate of the Institution of Chemists (India) by examination in the section of Food Analysts conducted by the Institution of Chemists (India) or any other equivalent qualification notified by the Food Authority with the prior approval of the Central Government and has not less than three years' experience in the analysis of food; and

(ii) has been declared qualified for appointment as a Food Analyst by a board appointed and notified by the Authority.

Notwithstanding anything contained above,

(a) any person who has been declared qualified for appointment as Public Analyst by the board constituted under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 shall also be eligible for holding the post of Food Analyst.

(b) any person who is a Public Analyst under the provisions of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 on the date of commencement of these rules, may hold office of the Food Analyst subject to the terms and conditions of service applicable to such person.

A person appointed as Food Analyst shall undergo all specialized training programmes specified by the Food Authority periodically.

2. Duties. -

(i) The Food Analyst shall analyse or cause to be analysed the article of food sent to him for analysis. In analyzing the article of food, the Food Analyst shall follow such instructions and shall adhere to such procedure as adopted by the Food Authority from time to time. The report of analysis shall be signed by the Food Analyst.

(ii) After completion of analysis of article of food, the Food Analyst shall send his report to the Designated Officer, the Purchaser of article of food, as the case may be, in Form VII-A.

31. Rule 2.4.2 of the Rules which stipulates analysis of food samples by Food Analyst reads as under :

1. On receipt of the package containing a sample of food for analysis, the Food Analyst or an officer authorized by him shall compare the seals on the container and the outer cover with specimen impression of seal received separately and shall note the condition of the seal thereon.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD VISHWAKARMA Signing time: 28-11-2025 12:48:23 31

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:60826 WP No. 3956 of 2013 and other connected matters

2. Food laboratories including mobile food laboratories wherever required, may be established or notified by the Central/State Government for the purpose of testing food samples received from the Food Safety Officer/purchaser.

3. If the sample container received by the Food Analyst is found to be in broken condition or unfit for analysis, he shall, within a period of seven days from the date of receipt of such sample, inform the Designated Officer about the same and request him to send the second part of the sample for analysis.

4. On receipt of requisition from the Food Analyst pursuant to Rule 2.4.2 (3) the Designated Officer, shall by the succeeding working day, dispatch to the Food Analyst for analysis one part of the samples sent to him by the Food Safety Officer.

5. On receipt of the sample, the Food Analyst shall analyse or cause to be analysed the sample and send the analysis report mentioning the method of analysis. The analysis report shall be as per Form VII-A and four copies of the same shall be sent to the Designated Officer under whose jurisdiction the Food Safety Officer functions or the purchaser of article of food. The analysis report shall be signed by the Food Analyst and such report shall be sent within fourteen days of the receipt of the sample by the Food Analyst.

6. The Designated Officer shall keep two copies of analysis report for further action, one copy shall be sent to Food Safety Officer for record and one copy to Food business Operator from whom the sample was taken:

Provided that in case the sample cannot be analysed within fourteen days of its receipt, the Food Analyst shall inform the Designated Officer and the Commissioner of Food Safety giving reasons and specifying the time to be taken for analysis.

7. The manual of the method of analysis, as amended/adopted by the Authority from time to time including AOAC/ISO/Pearson's/ Jacob/IUPAC/Food Chemicals CODEX/BIS/Woodmen/ Winton-Winton/ Joslyn, shall be used for analysing the samples of food articles. However, in case the method for analyzing any parameter is not available in these manuals, a validated method of analysis prescribed by internationally recognized/analytical/regulatory agencies, shall be adopted.

32. From the perusal of the aforesaid, it is apparently clear that the report should contain the detailed particulars with respect to the misbranding of the food article. Merely stating that the food article is found to be misbranded does not suffice the requirements under the Food Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD VISHWAKARMA Signing time: 28-11-2025 12:48:23 32 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:60826 WP No. 3956 of 2013 and other connected matters Safety and Standards Act, 2006 or the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The report should clearly indicate the components on the basis of which the report of the food analyst declares the food article to be misbranded. In absence of the detailed particulars pertaining to the same, the food article cannot be said to be misbranded and no prosecution can be launched on its behalf. The report should clearly disclose the reasons for declaring the food article to be misbranded. The offence which is registered against the petitioner i.e. under Section 26(2)(ii) of the Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006 would be constituted only when misbranding is shown assigning reasons. As the food article, in the present case, has been declared as misbranded but the reasons are not assigned in the report itself and assigning of reasons is a mandatory requirement; therefore, sanction to initiate proceedings against the petitioner should not have been granted. The aforesaid aspect was not considered by the authority granting sanction to initiate proceedings against the petitioner. Under these circumstances, the sanction granted for prosecution of the petitioner is per se illegal.

33. If the said report of the Food Analyst is analysed, the same does not indicate adulteration or non-compliance with applicable standards as provided under Regulation 2.4.15.1 of the Food Safety and Standards (Food Products Standards and Food Additives) Regulation, 2011 and for the product to be declared as misbranded. The same may satisfy the ingredients as provided under Clause (zf) of Section 3 of the FSS Act, 2006. In the report in the present case given by the Food Analyst, it is observed that the sample is 'misbranded' without there being any reason or recording any finding or pointing out as to why the said product is deemed to be misbranded and without there being any specifications, regarding the Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD VISHWAKARMA Signing time: 28-11-2025 12:48:23 33 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:60826 WP No. 3956 of 2013 and other connected matters contents of the article, the said report cannot be relied upon. Under these circumstances, the report cannot be taken note of.

34. Another argument raised before this Court is that the right of an appeal as provided under Section 46(4) of the FSS Act has not been provided to the petitioner, which is statutory right of appeal against the report submitted by the Food Analyst. Section 46(4) of the Act reads as under :

46. Functions of Food Analyst. -

...

(4) An appeal against the report of Food Analyst shall lie before the Designated Officer who shall, if he so decides, refer the matter to the referral food laboratory as notified by the Food Authority for opinion.

35. If the aforesaid provisions of the FSS Act and the Rules and Regulations framed thereunder are seen, then it is apparently clear that the report of the Food Analyst is required to be supplied to the petitioner prior to taking any action as the valuable right to file an appeal against the same and get it tested from the superior authorities was available to the petitioner. The said provision is made to enable the petitioner to cross- check the report regarding sample which has been given by the Food Analyst from the superior authorities. In case the said right is not provided to the petitioner, the entire action taken against the petitioner would be per se illegal and contrary to the statutory provisions provided under the aforesaid section. Therefore, the prosecution, in the present case, cannot be launched against the petitioner.

36. Further, Rule 2.1.4(2)(ii) of the Rules provides for providing a report under Form VIIA to the petitioner to enable him to give a right of appeal in terms of Section 46(2) of the FSS Act. Non-furnishing of the report amounts to depriving the right of appeal to the petitioner.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD VISHWAKARMA Signing time: 28-11-2025 12:48:23 34

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:60826 WP No. 3956 of 2013 and other connected matters

37. One more argument which has been raised that the food article i.e biscuits which are manufactured from the petitioner have an expiry date of six months from the date of manufacture. In the present case, the samples were collected on 04.04.2012. The samples must have surpassed the expiry date. Therefore, the Food Analyst Report which has been given showing the article to be 'misbranded' was mandatorily required to be supplied to the petitioner for getting it analysed from the superior authority. In case the analysis of the food article seized was carried out after the expiry date of the food article, then the results would have been different. Such report cannot be relied upon for launching prosecution and the valuable right of the petitioner to get the sample analysed through NABL accredited/FSSAI notified laboratories cannot be curtailed. Under these circumstances, the prosecution launched against the petitioner deserves to be quashed.

38. It is trite that the sanction order should not be mere formalities but should reflect a thorough analysis of the case facts. In this regard, reference can be had to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan vs State of Gujarat, reported in (1997) 7 SCC 622 wherein it is held as under :

19. Since the validity of "sanction" depends on the applicability of mind by the sanctioning authority to the facts of the case as also the material and evidence collected during investigation, it necessarily follows that the sanctioning authority has to apply its own independent mind for the generation of genuine satisfaction whether prosecution has to be sanctioned or not. The mind of the sanctioning authority should not be under pressure from any quarter nor should any external force be acting upon it to take a decision one way or the other. Since the discretion to grant or not to grant sanction vests absolutely in the sanctioning authority, its discretion should be shown to have not been affected by any extraneous consideration. If it is shown that the sanctioning authority was unable to apply its independent mind for any reason whatsoever or was under an obligation or compulsion or constraint to grant the sanction, the order will be bad for the reason that the discretion of the authority "not to sanction" was taken away and it was compelled to act mechanically to sanction the prosecution.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD VISHWAKARMA Signing time: 28-11-2025 12:48:23 35

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:60826 WP No. 3956 of 2013 and other connected matters

39. In the case of State of Karnataka vs Ameerjan, reported in (2007) 11 SCC 273, it is observed that an order of sanction should not be construed in a pedantic manner. It is well settled that the purpose for which an order of sanction is required to be passed should always be borne in mind.

40. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CBI vs Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, reported in (2014) 14 SCC 295 has held as under :

14. It is to be kept in mind that sanction lifts the bar for prosecution.

Therefore, it is not an acrimonious exercise but a solemn and sacrosanct act which affords protection to the government servant against frivolous prosecution. Further, it is a weapon to discourage vexatious prosecution and is a safeguard for the innocent, though not a shield for the guilty.

15. Consideration of the material implies application of mind. Therefore, the order of sanction must ex facie disclose that the sanctioning authority had considered the evidence and other material placed before it. In every individual case, the prosecution has to establish and satisfy the court by leading evidence that those facts were placed before the sanctioning authority and the authority had applied its mind on the same. If the sanction order on its face indicates that all relevant material i.e. FIR, disclosure statements, recovery memos, draft charge-sheet and other materials on record were placed before the sanctioning authority and if it is further discernible from the recital of the sanction order that the sanctioning authority perused all the material, an inference may be drawn that the sanction had been granted in accordance with law. This becomes necessary in case the court is to examine the validity of the order of sanction inter alia on the ground that the order suffers from the vice of total non-application of mind.

16. In view of the above, the legal propositions can be summarised as under:

16.1. The prosecution must send the entire relevant record to the sanctioning authority including the FIR, disclosure statements, statements of witnesses, recovery memos, draft charge-sheet and all other relevant material. The record so sent should also contain the material/document, if any, which may tilt the balance in favour of the accused and on the basis of which, the competent authority may refuse sanction. 16.2. The authority itself has to do complete and conscious scrutiny of the whole record so produced by the prosecution independently applying its mind and taking into consideration all the relevant facts before grant of sanction while discharging its duty to give or withhold the sanction. 16.3. The power to grant sanction is to be exercised strictly keeping in mind the public interest and the protection available to the accused against whom the sanction is sought.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD VISHWAKARMA Signing time: 28-11-2025 12:48:23 36

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:60826 WP No. 3956 of 2013 and other connected matters 16.4. The order of sanction should make it evident that the authority had been aware of all relevant facts/materials and had applied its mind to all the relevant material.

16.5. In every individual case, the prosecution has to establish and satisfy the court by leading evidence that the entire relevant facts had been placed before the sanctioning authority and the authority had applied its mind on the same and that the sanction had been granted in accordance with law.

41. The coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of ITC vs State of M.P. and others : WP No. 5427 of 2016 decided on 17.04.2017 has observed thus :

19/ That apart it is also noticed that the designated officer has granted sanction for prosecution exercising the power under Section 36(3)(e) of the Act vide order Annexure P/7. It is a cryptic order which shows that the designated officer has not applied its mind to the fact if on the basis of the available material any offence or violation of provisions of the Act or Regulations is made out. The law in this regard is well settled that while granting sanction the authority concerned is required to apply mind on the facts of the case as also the relevant material while reaching to the conclusion as to whether prosecution has to be sanctioned or not. [See: AIR 1997 SC 3400, Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan Vs. State of Gujarat]. It should be clear from the Form of sanction that the sanctioning authority considered the evidence before it and after a consideration of all the circumstances of the case, sanctioned the prosecution. [See: AIR 1958 SC 124 Jaswant Singh Vs. State of Punjab]. The grant of sanction is a serious exercise of power by the competent authority and it has to be apprised of all the relevant material, and on such materials, the authority has to take a conscious decision as to whether the facts would reveal the commission of offence under the relevant provisions. [See: AIR 2014 SC 2369, P.L. Tatwal Vs. State of M.P.]. It is an obligation of the sanctioning authority to discharge his duty to give or withhold sanction only after having full knowledge of the material facts of the case. Sanction is a weapon to discourage vexatious prosecution and it is a safeguard for the innocent, though not a shield for the guilty. Consideration of the material implies application of mind, therefore, the order of sanction must ex facie disclose that the sanctioning authority had considered the evidence and other material placed before it. [See: AIR 2014 SC 827, CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal].

42. If the aforesaid proposition of law laid down in the aforesaid cases and the provisions of law enumerated hereinabove, are applied to the facts and circumstances of the case, then it can safely be said that the statutory Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD VISHWAKARMA Signing time: 28-11-2025 12:48:23 37 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:60826 WP No. 3956 of 2013 and other connected matters provisions as provided under the FSS Act and Rules & Regulations framed thereunder have not been complied with by the respondents-authorities prior to granting sanction for prosecution of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, the prosecution launched against the petitioner is unsustainable and deserves to be quashed.

43. In view of the foregoing discussion, the impugned sanction order passed by the respondents-authorities for prosecution of the petitioner(s) as well as subsequent proceedings initiated against them in pursuance to the sanction are hereby quashed.

44. In above terms, the petitions stand allowed and disposed of finally. No order as to costs.

(VISHAL MISHRA) JUDGE VV Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD VISHWAKARMA Signing time: 28-11-2025 12:48:23

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Madhya Pradesh High Court