Court affirms public health priority over commercial interests, dismissing plea against Referral Laboratory's report declaring milk unsafe.
In a significant judgment emphasizing the primacy of public health, the Jammu & Kashmir High Court has dismissed a petition filed by Mr. S.D. Mevada and others challenging the proceedings initiated against them under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. The petitioners, representing M/s Banaskantha District Cooperative Milk Producers' Union Ltd., objected to the cognizance order issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shopian, following a Referral Laboratory's report that declared their milk product "Amul Taza Homogenised Toned Milk" unsafe.
The bench, presided by Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal, underscored the importance of following statutory procedures under Rule 2.4.3 of the Food Safety and Standards Rules, 2011. The court noted that the Designated Officer had duly recorded reasons for referring the milk sample to a Referral Laboratory after the initial report by the Food Analyst was found incomplete. The Referral Laboratory's comprehensive analysis, which included testing for antibiotic residues, pesticide residues, and heavy metals, revealed safety concerns that warranted legal proceedings.
In its legal analysis, the court dismissed the petitioners' claims of procedural irregularities, emphasizing that the Designated Officer's actions were in line with statutory mandates intended to protect public health. The court reiterated that the powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code are to be exercised sparingly and only in cases of procedural abuse, which was not evident in this instance.
Further, the court rejected the petitioners' argument regarding the need for a pre-decisional hearing before the referral of the sample. It clarified that the Food Safety and Standards Act does not require such a procedure, and the Referral Laboratory's report is conclusive.
The judgment also addressed the liability of the Managing Director, affirming that he cannot claim blanket immunity under Section 66 of the Food Safety and Standards Act. The court highlighted that public health considerations must prevail over private commercial interests, especially when the safety of a widely consumed product like milk is in question.
The court's decision mandates expeditious trial proceedings, emphasizing the urgent nature of public health matters. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shopian, is directed to conclude the case within six months, ensuring the safety and trust of consumers are upheld.
Bottom line:-
Food Safety - Referral of food sample to Referral Laboratory under Rule 2.4.3 of Food Safety and Standards Rules, 2011 - Reasons recorded by Designated Officer for referral found valid - Report of Referral Laboratory overrides initial report of Food Analyst - Managing Director of company cannot claim blanket immunity from prosecution under Section 66 of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.
Statutory provision(s):
- Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
- Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, Sections 26(1), 26(2)(i), 3(1)(zz)(xii), 66
- Food Safety and Standards Rules, 2011, Rule 2.4.3
