The Allahabad High Court ruled that if a food business operator, such as a restaurant, purchases raw materials or ingredients from a registered manufacturer in a sealed packet with a proper invoice, and the contents of the packet are found to be unsafe, the prima facie liability lies with the registered manufacturer, not the restaurant. The court was hearing an application to quash the summoning order issued under Section 26(2)(i) and 59(i) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, along with the related proceedings. Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, in his ruling, affirmed that Section 26(4) of the Act, 2006 stipulates that a food business operator must not sell any food product without providing a written guarantee for its nature and quality, and any bill, cash memo, or invoice related to the sale will be considered as a guarantee under the Act.
Senior Advocate Kabeer Tiwari represented the Applicants, while the Government Advocate appeared for the Opposite Party. Factual Background: The first Applicant was employed at the restaurant (the second Applicant), which sells various types of prepared food. The Chief Food Security Officer, along with his team, inspected the restaurant premises, and upon request, the first Applicant provided the restaurant’s license, which was valid until February 10, 2024. During the inspection, the Chief Food Security Officer purchased four packets of Goldiee Masala brand turmeric powder found at the premises. The sealed turmeric powder packets were sent for examination, and the food analyst at the Government Food Laboratory in Lucknow discovered that the packets contained lead chromate, which is harmful to human health. As a result, the sample was declared unsafe. Following the necessary permissions under Section 42(4), the Food Security Officer filed a complaint. The Magistrate then took cognizance of the case and issued a summons under Section 59(1) to the applicants, which was challenged in the current 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