Bombay High Court Quashes Criminal Case Against Nestlé Officials Over Maggi Noodles Controversy

Food Samples Must Be Tested in Accredited Laboratories; Unverified Reports Cannot Form Basis for Prosecution - In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court quashed criminal proceedings against Nestlé India Limited and its officials in connection with the alleged misbranding of Maggi Instant Noodles. The court held that the prosecution relied on a laboratory report from the Referral Food Laboratory, Ghaziabad, which was not accredited by the National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration Laboratories (NABL) at the relevant time. "The analysis made in such a laboratory cannot be relied upon," the court ruled, emphasizing strict compliance with the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSS Act).

The case stemmed from a 2016 complaint filed by the Food Safety Officer, alleging that samples of Maggi Instant Noodles failed to meet regulatory standards. The Food Analyst at the State Public Health Laboratory in Pune initially found the product compliant with prescribed standards. However, dissatisfied with this report, authorities referred the sample to the Ghaziabad laboratory, which later found deviations in the ash and nitrogen content. Based on this second report, a criminal complaint was filed against Nestlé and its officials.

The High Court ruled that the prosecution's reliance on the Referral Food Laboratory’s report was legally flawed. “Section 43(1) mandates that the Food Analyst has to analyze the food in a laboratory accredited by NABL and recognized by the Food Authority,” the court held, adding that at the time of the sample’s analysis, the Ghaziabad laboratory lacked the required accreditation.

Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. Food Inspector, the court reiterated that non-compliance with the FSS Act’s procedural safeguards renders the entire prosecution invalid. “If the food is tested in a laboratory that does not fall within the definition under Section 3(p) and is not recognized by the Food Authority, the analysis cannot be relied upon,” the court declared.

The ruling reinforces the principle that food safety prosecutions must adhere strictly to statutory requirements to prevent arbitrary or unjustified criminal liability. The court’s decision to quash the case underscores the judiciary’s commitment to due process and the rule of law in food safety regulation.
 

Date of decision: 07 January 2025