The Allahabad High Court held that if any food business operator like a restaurant purchases any raw material or ingredient of food from a registered manufacturer in a sealed packet with a proper invoice and the ingredient of food in the sealed packet is found to be unsafe, then prima facie liability will be of its registered manufacturer and not of the restaurant.

The High Court was considering an application seeking quashing of the summoning order passed under Section 26(2)(i), 59(i) Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 as well as the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case.

The Single Bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal affirmed,“Section 26(4) of the Act, 2006 further provides that the food business operator will not sell any article of food without giving a guarantee in writing for its nature and quality and bill, cash memo, or invoice in respect of the sale of any article of food shall be deemed to be guaranteed under this Act.”

Senior Advocate Kabeer Tiwari represented the Applicants while the Government Advocate represented the Opposite Party.

Factual Background

The first Applicant has been working at the restaurant (second Applicant) which deals with selling different kinds of prepared food. The premises of the Restaurant was inspected by the Chief Food Security Officer along with his team and on demand of the Chief Food Security Officer, the first applicant showed the licence which was valid up to February 10, 2024. Thereafter, the Chief Food Security Officer purchased four packets of turmeric powder of Goldiee Masala Brand which was found in the premises.

When these sealed packets of turmeric powder were sent for examination, the food analyst, Government Food Laboratory, Lucknow, found that the sealed packets of the turmeric powder had lead chromate which is harmful for human consumption, hence the sample was declared unsafe. After getting the required permission, under Section 42(4), the complaint was filed by the Food Security Officer. Thereafter, the Magistrate took cognizance and issued summon under Section 59(1) to the applicants by an order which was impugned in the present application.

Reasoning

The Bench, at the outset, made it clear that turmeric powder comes within the definition of "food" as the same is consumed by human beings by mixing it with other food items. Therefore, turmeric powder will fall under the category of food ingredients as per Section 3(1)(y) of Act, 2006. As per the Food Safety and Standards (Food Products Standard and Food Additives) Regulations, 2011, which prescribes the food product standard, Turmeric Powder (Haldi) falls within the category of food product as per Regulation 2.9.18 and as per Regulation 2.9.18(2) Turmeric Powder (Haldi) would also fall within the definition of a food product.

Referring to the definition of “Food Business”, the Bench explained that a restaurant, which carries out the activity of food service, will come within the definition of food business operator for the purpose of food prepared in the restaurant. It is also clear from the above definition of food business that restaurant cannot be treated as a food business operator for food ingredients unless it sells the same.

“So far as the other question, regarding the liability of applicant No.2 being food business operator merely on storing the turmeric powder, purchased from a branded company is concerned, for that purpose Section 3(1)(o) of Act, 2006 itself provides that food business operator is responsible for ensuring compliance of this Act, rules and regulations”, it said.

The Bench further clarified, “...it is clear that if any food business operator like a restaurant purchased any raw material or ingredient of food from a registered manufacturer in a sealed packet with a proper invoice, then it would be deemed that the raw material or ingredient of food is of standard quality. If the ingredient of food in sealed packet is found to be unsafe, then prima facie liability will be of its registered manufacturer or its distributor and not of the restaurant unless the seal of packet or its invoice is disputed or doubted.”

It was noticed that the applicant had purchased the turmeric powder from a licensed/registered manufacturer and relied upon the information given by the manufacturer of the turmeric powder about the quality and standard based on invoices, then in such circumstances if the turmeric powder was found to be unsafe despite the guarantee of its quality by its registered/licensed manufacturer, in that case the food business operator dealing with the business of selling the turmeric powder or its distributor would be liable and not the restaurant or its owner or any of its employees selling the food.

Thus, allowing the application, the Bench quashed the impugned proceedings against the present applicants. “However, the court below is free to proceed against the manufacturer/distributor of the turmeric powder who despite issuing an invoice regarding its quality, failed to adhere to its standard”, it concluded.

Cause Title: Piyush Gupta And Another v. State of U.P. and Another (Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC:19425)

Appearance:

Applicants: Senior Advocate Kabeer Tiwari

Opposite Party: Government Advocate

Click here to read/download Order


Click here to read/download Order


Allahabad High CourtJustice Arun Kumar Singh DeshwalFood Safety and Standards Act

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.