Restaurant Not Responsible For Raw Material Quality When Sealed Pack Bought From Registered Manufacturer With Proper Invoice: Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court has held that a Food Business Operator cannot be held responsible for quality of the raw materials used by him when the same have been bought from registered manufacturers in sealed packet with proper invoice.

While dealing with Turmeric Powder manufactured by Goldiee Masala contaminated with lead chromate, Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal held

“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.”

Factual Background

Applicant-1, Piyush Gupta, is working at the Applicant-2 restaurant, which prepares and sells different kinds of foods. During search of the premises on 21.3.2023, the Chief Food Security Officer purchased four packets of turmeric powder of Goldiee Masala Brand from the applicant-2's premises and sent them for examination to Government Food Laboratory, Lucknow. The food samples were found to have lead chromate and were declared unfit for human consumption.

After obtaining permission from Commissioner Food Security, Lucknow a complaint was filed by the Food Security Officer, Sahjahanpur. The Magistrate took cognizance and issued summons under Section 59(1) of Food Security and Safety Act, 2006 which was challenged by the applicant.

Counsel for applicants argued that the applicant was involved only in preparing food from the turmeric and not selling the turmeric. It was argued that for any defects in the sealed packaging of a branded company, the manufacturer should be held liable and not the applicant as he was a Food Business Operator under Section 26 of the Act. It was further submitted that the applicant could not be held absolutely liable like the manufacturer under Section 27 of the Act.

High Court Verdict

The Court observed that Turmeric Powder (haldi) is a food ingredient within the definition of Section 3(1)(y) of the Act and has been listed as a food product with standards in Regulation 2.9.18 of the Food Safety and Standards (Food Products Standard and Food Additives) Regulations, 2011. The tests for Turmeric Powder specifically provides that it should test negative for lead chromate.

Further, looking at the definition of “Food business” as defined in Section 3(1)(n) and “food business operator” defined in Section 3(1)(o) of the Act, the Court concluded that a restaurant cannot be a food business operator for food ingredients unless they are sold by it.

The Court noted that the applicant was given license for edible ices including sherbet and sorbe, beverages including dairy products and prepared foods. It further noted that Annexure-3 of Form B in Schedule 2 of the Regulations provides for conditions of license of food business operators. Condition 9 lays down the burden on the licensee to “Ensure that the source and standards of raw material used are of optimum quality.” Condition 14 provides food products must be brought from licensed/registered vendors and records of the same must be maintained.

Justice Deshwal observed that Section 26 burdens the food business operator to ensure that no food article is stored in contravention to the provisions of the Act along with ensuring compliance of all provisions of the Act.

The Court held that certain defences were available to the applicant under Section 80 of the Act including defence of due diligence and reasonable precaution by complying all the conditions mentioned in the Act, 2006. It observed that the defences could be taken at the Trail stage and in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C./528 B.N.S.S. to quash the complaint proceeding.

Holding that the liability is of the manufacturer, the Court held that the applicant had purchased the turmeric powder from a reputed manufacturer with undoubted invoices, fulfilling all conditions under the Act.

“In the present case, it is not in dispute that the applicant has 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 on the basis of invoices, then in such circumstances if the turmeric powder is found to be unsafe despite guarantee of its quality by its registered/licensed manufacturer, in that case the food business operator dealing with 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.”

Quashing the proceedings against the applicants, the High Court gave the liberty to the Trail Court to proceed against the manufacturer/ distributor of the Goldiee Masala Turmeric Powder for giving invoices when the product did not meet its quality checks.

Case Title: Piyush Gupta And Anothers v. State of U.P. and Another [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 25418 of 2024]

Click Here To Read/Download Order