The recent ruling by the Kerala High Court has garnered attention for its significant impact on a case involving ‘Bunge Dalda Vanaspati.’ The Court has issued a temporary stay on criminal proceedings initiated against the company in a Magistrate Court, where they were accused of violating the provisions of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. This decision was delivered by Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan, who reviewed the complaint and found that a prima facie case existed in favor of the petitioners, prompting the issuance of an interim stay lasting for six months.
Read More: The Telangana High Court orders Osmania University to reevaluate backlog exam fees.
A criminal complaint was filed with the Food Safety Officer:
The case at hand centers around a criminal complaint lodged by the Food Safety Officer, Majeri, who accused ‘Bunge Dalda Vanaspati’ of food adulteration in their product. The charges brought against the company included violations of several sections of the Food Safety and Standards Act, such as Section 3(1)(zz)(xii), Section 20, Section 26(1), Section 26(2)(i), Section 27(2)(c), Section 59(i), and Section 66. The essence of the accusation was that lab analyses of ‘Bunge Dalda Vanaspati’ revealed the presence of nickel and lead exceeding the permissible limits set by the Food Rules of 2011 about harmful substances and waste in food.
Senior Counsel Dr. K. P. Satheesan, who represented the petitioners, brought attention to the conflicting findings within the laboratory reports. While the initial report from the Regional Analytical Laboratory indicated nickel content exceeding the prescribed limit, a subsequent report from the Referral Food Laboratory in Mysore suggested that nickel content was within the specified limit but showed an excess of lead content. Satheesan argued that due to these inconsistent findings, it was essential to seek a third opinion from a laboratory recognized by the Government of India. Furthermore, he alleged that the lab tests were conducted on expired products of ‘Bunge Dalda Vanaspati,’ raising concerns about the accuracy of the results.
Read More: Three High Courts Await New Chief Justices, Says Supreme Court Collegium
The plea put forward by the petitioners also emphasized that the initiation of prosecution should not be based on a mere complaint unless the parameters deemed unsafe are legally established. In addition to this, it was argued that a Designated Officer must make recommendations to the Commissioner of Food Safety within 14 days after detecting an offense, and prosecution sanction should be obtained without undue delay. The petitioners contended that the recommendations from the Commissioner of Food Safety were made after a period of six months, rendering the initiation of prosecution legally invalid. The legal team representing the petitioners included Senior Counsel K.P. Satheesan, along with Advocates P. Mohandas, R. Bhaskara Krishnan, Bharath Mohan, K. Sudhinkumar, Sabu Pullan, and Gokul D. Sudhakaran.
Read More: The Telangana High Court orders Osmania University to reevaluate backlog exam fees.
The legal team representing the petitioners skillfully pointed out discrepancies within the laboratory reports. While the initial analysis from the Regional Analytical Laboratory indicated that nickel content exceeded the prescribed limit, a subsequent report from the Referral Food Laboratory in Mysore contradicted this by indicating that nickel content fell within the specified limit. However, the latter report revealed elevated lead content. This inconsistency raised concerns about the accuracy of the findings, and the petitioners argued for a third opinion from a laboratory recognized by the Government of India. Furthermore, they alleged that the tests had been conducted on expired ‘Bunge Dalda Vanaspati’ products, casting doubt on the validity of the results.
The Kerala High Court’s decision:
The Kerala High Court’s decision to issue an interim stay underscores the core principles of adhering to established legal standards and procedures when dealing with allegations of food safety violations and product adulteration. The ruling serves as a reminder of the necessity for precise and consistent laboratory testing and highlights that the commencement of prosecution should be based on well-defined legal parameters and timely recommendations from relevant authorities. This case exemplifies the legal safeguards in place to protect the interests of both consumers and businesses in matters concerning food safety and standards, emphasizing the importance of a fair and transparent legal process.