*Refuses to quash unsafe milk case
Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, May 22: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has underscored that public health is of paramount importance and must prevail over private commercial interests while refusing to quash criminal proceedings arising out of an allegedly unsafe milk sample.
The judgment has been passed in a petition filed by the representatives of Gujarat-based M/s Banaskantha District Cooperative Milk Producers’ Union Ltd challenging the criminal complaint pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shopian, seeking quashing of the cognizance order dated October 7, 2021.
The case arose after a sample of Amul Taza Homogenized Toned Milk was lifted by the Food Safety Officer, Shopian. While the initial report of the Food Analyst dated October 27, 2020 had declared the sample to be of standard quality, the Designated Officer later referred the sample to the Referral Laboratory after finding that crucial parameters, including antibiotic residue, pesticide residue and heavy metals, had not been tested.
The Referral Laboratory at National Dairy Development Board, Anand, Gujarat subsequently declared the sample unsafe under Sections 26(1) and 26(2)(i) read with Section 3(1)(zz)(xii) of the Food Safety and Standards Act.
Before the High Court, the petitioners argued that the sample had been referred to the Referral Laboratory without recording reasons as required under Rule 2.4.3 of the Food Safety and Standards Rules, 2011 and without granting them an opportunity of hearing.
Touching upon food safety and consumer protection, Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal held that issues concerning food safety cannot be treated lightly or decided merely on technical considerations, especially when the food article involved is milk consumed daily by children, pregnant women, elderly persons and patients.
The High Court observed that public health is of paramount importance and must prevail over private commercial interests, adding that contaminated milk has the potential to seriously affect human health and may cause long-term and irreversible consequences.
“The Designated Officer had duly recorded reasons in writing before referring the sample for further scientific examination. The first analysis had covered only eight parameters and omitted important tests relating to antibiotic residues, pesticide residues and heavy metals”, the High Court said, adding Rule 2.4.3 was enacted to ensure immediate, effective and comprehensive scientific examination of food samples in cases where the initial report appears incomplete, deficient or erroneous.
The High Court further held that the authorities entrusted with implementation of the Food Safety and Standards Act cannot be expected to mechanically accept an incomplete report when important safety parameters affecting human health remain unexamined.
On the issue of hearing, the High Court ruled that neither the Food Safety and Standards Act nor the Rules framed thereunder contemplate any pre-decisional hearing before a sample is referred to the Referral Laboratory.
The High Court also rejected the contention regarding alleged contradiction between the first report and the Referral Laboratory report, holding that the Referral Laboratory functions as the final scientific authority under the statutory framework and its opinion carries overriding effect.
Relying upon a judgment of the Madras High Court, the High Court reiterated that once the Referral Laboratory report is received, the earlier report loses significance and prosecution can proceed on the basis of the final scientific determination.
The High Court also declined to accept the plea of immunity raised by the Managing Director under Section 66 of the Food Safety and Standards Act. The Court held that a Managing Director, being in overall control of the affairs of the company, cannot claim blanket immunity merely because another officer has been nominated for food safety purposes.
Emphasising the constitutional importance of public health, the High Court cited the Supreme Court judgment in Vincent Panikurlangara Versus Union of India, which held that maintenance and improvement of public health rank among the highest priorities of the State.
The High Court observed that once the statutory Referral Laboratory declared the sample unsafe, the matter ceased to remain a mere dispute between the parties and became an issue directly affecting public health and public safety.
Refusing to extend interim protection any further, the High Court noted that the stay operating since April 21, 2022 had continued seriously jeopardizing the health of the public.
Finding prima facie material disclosing commission of offences punishable under Section 59 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, the High Court dismissed the petition and vacated all interim directions.
The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shopian, has been directed to proceed with the complaint strictly in accordance with law and make all possible endeavours to conclude the proceedings expeditiously, preferably within six months.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
