Bombay High Court quashes criminal case against Britannia Dairy

MUMBAI: Britannia’s cheese case has been cut short in court, after the Bombay High Court found that the company was denied key safeguards available under food safety law.

Justice Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale quashed criminal proceedings against Britannia Dairy Pvt Ltd over allegations that its Britannia Cheese Cubes, Sour Cream and Onion were unsafe, holding that the prosecution could not continue after the company was deprived of statutory safeguards under the Food Safety and Standards Act and Rules, Live Law Biz reported.

The case dates back to July 30, 2013, when a Food Safety Officer purchased four packets of the cheese from a Big Bazaar outlet at R City Mall in Ghatkopar, Mumbai, for analysis. The product had been packed on February 12, 2013, with a nine-month shelf life ending on November 12, 2013.

A Food Analyst’s report dated August 14, 2013, found the sample infested with fungus and classified it as unsafe under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.

But the notice to Britannia arrived much later on May 17, 2014, around six months after the cheese had already crossed its expiry date.

That delay became central to the High Court’s decision. Under Rule 2.4.5(1) of the Food Safety and Standards Rules, 2011, Britannia was entitled to have the fourth part of the sample analysed at an NABL-accredited or FSSAI-notified laboratory. By the time the company was notified, that statutory opportunity had effectively been lost.

The company also asked for a copy of the laboratory report after receiving the notice, but did not receive it. The court said this further deprived Britannia of a statutory safeguard.

Section 46(4) of the FSS Act provides for an appeal against a Food Analyst’s report before the Designated Officer, while Rule 2.4.6 provides for referral of the sample to a referral food laboratory. The High Court noted that the relevant notices were mandatory, pointing to the use of the word “shall” in the Rules.

The court also found a problem with the complaint itself, noting that it did not mention the May 17, 2014 notice even though the prosecution relied on the Food Testing Lab report that had not been supplied to Britannia.

The magistrate’s order issuing process came under scrutiny too. The High Court described it as a “rubber stamp order” that failed to demonstrate adequate application of mind.

There was also a territorial jurisdiction issue. Two accused were based in Baramati, Pune, outside the jurisdiction of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 46th Court, Mazgaon, Mumbai. The court held that Section 202 of the CrPC required an inquiry before process could be issued in such circumstances.

The complaint invoked Section 59 of the FSS Act and other provisions concerning unsafe food. The court also noted that an alleged licensing violation under Sections 31(1) and 63 was not the basis of the complaint against Britannia.

Ultimately, the High Court held that the delayed notice, non-supply of the laboratory report and loss of Britannia’s statutory opportunities made continuation of the prosecution untenable.

The ruling does not amount to a finding that food safety requirements can be sidestepped. Instead, the court’s focus was on whether the statutory procedure and safeguards meant to protect an accused were properly followed before criminal proceedings were allowed to continue.