Chhattisgarh High Court quashes food misbranding prosecution, holding vague allegations cannot sustain criminal proceedings.

News Citation : 2026 LN (HC) 406

July 24, 2026 : The Chhattisgarh High Court has quashed food safety proceedings initiated against a fruit juice manufacturer after holding that a prosecution cannot continue on the basis of vague and unspecified allegations. The Court observed that when a food product is alleged to be “misbranded,” the complaint must clearly identify the exact statutory provision or regulation that has been violated. Mere reference to penal provisions without disclosing the precise regulatory breach is insufficient to sustain criminal proceedings.

The petition was filed by M/s. Jyoti Industries, a proprietary concern engaged in manufacturing fruit juices under a valid licence issued under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSS Act). The company challenged the complaint dated 19 January 2021, the sanction order authorising prosecution, and the cognizance order passed by the Adjudicating Officer, Raigarh, contending that the proceedings were legally unsustainable.

The dispute originated from an inspection conducted by the Food Safety Officer at a retail shop in Raigarh district on 3 March 2020. During the inspection, samples of packaged “P.K. Litchi Fruit Juice” manufactured by the petitioner were collected and sent to the State Food Testing Laboratory. The Food Analyst reported that the product was “within norms” and was not adulterated. However, the analyst opined that the product was “misbranded” within the meaning of Section 3(1)(zf)(C)(i) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, leading to sanction for prosecution under Sections 26(1), 26(2)(ii), 27(1) and 27(3)(c), punishable under Sections 50 and 52 of the Act.

Before the High Court, the petitioner argued that neither the complaint nor the sanction order specified which provision of the Food Safety and Standards (Packaging and Labelling) Regulations, 2011 had actually been violated. It was contended that the absence of a specific allegation deprived the manufacturer of a fair opportunity to defend itself, rendering the prosecution legally defective.

The State defended the proceedings by submitting that the alleged violation related to Clause 6 of Regulation 2.2.2 of the Packaging and Labelling Regulations, 2011, which requires manufacturers to mention their complete postal address on food packages. According to the State, the product label carried an incomplete address of the manufacturer, amounting to misbranding.

After examining the record, Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal held that the State’s explanation could not cure the defect because the complaint, sanction order and cognizance order themselves failed to mention the alleged violation of Clause 6 or any other specific regulation. The Court noted that the statutory definition of “misbranded” requires authorities to explain precisely how the product falls within that definition. Simply stating that a food article is misbranded does not satisfy the legal requirement for initiating penal proceedings.

The Court emphasised that criminal law demands certainty and clarity in accusations. Explaining the legal position, the Court observed that “The complaint must contain the particulars sufficient to give the accused notice of the matter with which he is being prosecuted.” It further held that “For a criminal prosecution, the party must know the definite charge against him.” Without a specific allegation identifying the breached provision, the accused cannot effectively defend the case, resulting in prejudice and failure of justice.

The High Court relied upon the Patna High Court’s decision in Ratneshwar Mishra v. State of Bihar and the Supreme Court’s judgment in Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi, which recognise that criminal proceedings may be quashed where a complaint fails to disclose the essential ingredients of the alleged offence or suffers from fundamental legal defects.

Applying these principles, the Court found that the prosecution had failed to establish any identifiable breach of the Food Safety Act or the Packaging and Labelling Regulations before launching proceedings. It also attached significance to the Food Analyst’s finding that the sample was within prescribed quality standards and not adulterated. The Court held that, in these circumstances, merely alleging an incomplete postal address without specifically pleading the relevant regulatory violation could not justify prosecution under the penal provisions of the Act.

Allowing the writ petition, the High Court quashed the complaint, the sanction order and the order taking cognizance. It dismissed the complaint pending before the Adjudicating Officer, Raigarh, holding that the allegations, even if accepted at face value, did not disclose the essential ingredients of an offence against the petitioner. No order as to costs was passed.

The judgment is likely to have wider implications for food safety enforcement across the country. It reiterates that regulatory authorities must frame precise and legally sustainable allegations before initiating prosecution. The ruling also strengthens procedural safeguards available to manufacturers and businesses by ensuring that criminal proceedings under the Food Safety and Standards Act are based on clearly identified statutory violations rather than vague or generalized assertions.

Case Reference: M/s. Jyoti Industries v. State of Chhattisgarh & Another, WPC No. 2855 of 2021, 2026:CGHC:31775