Manufacturer, packer too liable for misbranded items: Karnataka High Court

Bengaluru: The high court has said that merely because the word ‘misbranded’ comes under the liability of the seller would not imply that a manufacturer or packer is not liable for misbranded items.

Justice Suraj Govindaraj said that in terms of section 27 (1) of the Food Safety and Standards Act 2006, a manufacturer or packer of an article of food shall be liable for the said food article if it does not meet the requirements of the statute and the rules which would include misbranding.

The petitioner before the court was Satyaraj M, a nominee of Maharaja Industries, Davangere, which is into the manufacturing of a product ‘Shashi Iodine Salt’. The case was that on September 7, 2015, the Senior Food Safety Officer of Chikkaballapura district had collected Shashi Iodine Crystal Salt pack from a provision store in Sidlaghatta and the sample was sent to Public Health Institution, Bengaluru. The proceedings were initiated after the report indicated that the sample was insoluble in water to an extent of 1.46 per cent and iodine content was ‘nil’.

Meantime, the petitioner forwarded the sample to TUV SCD South Asia Private Limited which said that the product was insoluble in water to an extent of 0.29 per cent and iodine content in the sample was 31.20 per cent.

Following this, the authorities again sent the sample to Referral Food Laboratory, Kolkata which stated that the sample was insoluble in water to an extent of 1.52 per cent and iodine content was nil. The petitioner challenged the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Chikkaballapura imposing Rs three lakh penalty on him.

It was submitted that the benefit of doubt has to be given to the petitioner when one of the reports is favourable to him. It was further submitted that in terms of section 27 of the Act, no action can be taken against a manufacturer or a packer for a product being misbranded.

“Section 27 (3)of Act only restricts the liability of the seller to misbranding and certain items ascribed thereunder , that does not mean, that a manufacturer or a packer is not liable for those items which have been ascribed under Section 27 (3) of the Act,” the court said.

However, pointing out at Section 49 of the Act, the court said that it would indicate that while determining the quantum of penalty, the amount of gain or unfair advantage wherever quantifiable would have to be taken into consideration. The court has now remanded the matter back to the Deputy Commissioner for fresh consideration of the penalty. “The Petitioner is permitted to furnish the details of the sales and turnover made by the Petitioner for the last 5 years prior to the date of issuance of notice for consideration by the Deputy Commissioner,” the court said.