On Friday (February 7), The Bombay High Court’s Nagpur bench overturned criminal action against Nestlé India limited personnel in a Maggi instant noodle case filed by the food safety officer before the additional chief judicial magistrate, Nagpur, on April 4, 2016. The Court of Justice Urmila Joshi Phalke found procedural flowers in food sample testing and dismissed the case.
According to the court, food testing under section 43(1) of the FSS Act must be carried out by laboratories authorized by the National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration Laboratories (NABL) and recognized by the Food Safety Standards Authority of India (FSSAI). The referral food laboratory in Ghaziabad which tested Maggi noodles could not fulfill the standards. As a result, the court found the report inadmissible.
Maggi Noodles Case Since 2015
Maggi noodles were banned country-wide in June 2015 after reports that the contained containments that exceeded legal limits. Nestlé India had to recall and destroy 38000 terms of Maggi noodles. The restriction was lifted in November 2015 after additional testing determined the food was safe to consume.
In 2015, The Ministry of Consumer Affairs filed a complaint against Nestlé India under the Consumer Protection Act, blaming the corporation for deceiving consumers and engaging in unfair trade practices with regard to the noodles. This was the first time such a provision had been employed in the act’s history.
The petitioner represented by counsel SV Manohar claimed that the Ghaziabad laboratory had not been granted accreditation by the National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration Laboratories (NABL) when it analyzed their specimens. The court emphasized that only NABL-accredited labs are permitted to conduct such tests under section 43 of the FSS Act. Since the lab only received NABL accreditation on December 15, 2016, the report was considered legally void.
The court also noted that the food samples had exceeded their shelf life when tested raising issues about their dependability. The product in question was made in March 2015 and remained in peak condition for only 9 months. As a result, when the sample arrived at the Referral Food Laboratory, it had beyond its expiration date. The bench also pointed out procedural flaws such as the court’s failure to issue a formal order summoning the accused.
Be First to Comment