The Madhya Pradesh High Court has clarified that unexplained delays in food safety analysis reports and marginal deviations from statutory norms can render penalties under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 legally unsustainable. This judgment reinforces the principle that procedural integrity and scientific accuracy must both be upheld before imposing financial penalties on small food businesses.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, Ashok Prajapati, is the proprietor of M/s Shriram Dairy, operating at Fort Road, Gwalior, engaged in the preparation and sale of dairy products. On 08/08/2023, a Food Safety Officer conducted an inspection of the premises and collected samples of Milk Cream (loose) and Curd (loose) for laboratory analysis. The firm held a valid license until 31/12/2025. The samples were collected in accordance with procedure, and payment was made for the samples taken.
Key Facts
Sample collection date: 08/08/2023
Samples dispatched to Food Laboratory, Bhopal via registered parcel on 08/08/2023
Laboratory received samples on 14/08/2023
Milk Cream analysis report (Ex. P/14) submitted on 03/10/2023: found compliant with standards
Curd analysis report (Ex. P/15) submitted on 12/12/2023: found non-compliant
Standard for Milk Solids Non-Fat (MSNF) in curd: Not Less Than (NLT) 8.7%
Reported MSNF in curd sample: 7.5%
Difference: 1.2% below standard
No appeal filed against the analysis report under Section 46(4)
Legal notice issued under Section 46(4) on 28/12/2023
Prosecution sanction granted on 19/02/2024
Complaint filed under Section 26 read with Section 51 on 28/02/2024
Adjudicating Officer’s order dated 31/12/2024: imposed fine of Rs.1,00,000
Appeal filed before Principal District Judge under Section 70
Appellate order dated 26/03/2026: dismissed appeal
Writ appeal filed before Madhya Pradesh High Court on 09/07/2026
Procedural History
08/08/2023: Inspection and sample collection by Food Safety Officer
14/08/2023: Samples received by Food Laboratory, Bhopal
03/10/2023: Milk Cream analysis report submitted
12/12/2023: Curd analysis report submitted (120 days after receipt)
28/12/2023: Notice issued under Section 46(4)
19/02/2024: Prosecution sanction granted
28/02/2024: Complaint filed before Adjudicating Officer
31/12/2024: Adjudicating Officer imposes fine of Rs.1,00,000
26/03/2026: Principal District Judge dismisses appeal under Section 70
09/07/2026: Judgment delivered by High Court on Miscellaneous Second Appeal No.36 of 2026
Relief Sought
The appellant sought setting aside of the orders dated 31/12/2024 and 26/03/2026, quashing of the fine of Rs.1,00,000, and declaration that the penalty was illegal due to procedural violations and marginal deviation.
The Legal Issue
The central questions were: (1) Whether the 14-day deadline under Section 46(3) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 for submission of the Food Analyst’s report is mandatory or directory, and (2) Whether a 1.2% deviation from the prescribed standard for Milk Solids Non-Fat in curd is sufficient to sustain a penalty under Section 51, in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling in P.S. Sharma v. Madanlal Kasturichandji & Anr.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
Learned counsel contended that the Food Analyst’s report was submitted 120 days after receipt of the sample, far exceeding the 14-day statutory limit under Section 46(3). No explanation was provided for the delay, nor was the Designated Officer informed as required by the proviso. Reliance was placed on B. Srinivasan v. State of Tamil Nadu and H.P. Gupta v. S. Selveraj, where the Madras High Court held the 14-day period to be mandatory. Further, counsel argued that the 1.2% deviation in MSNF was de minimis and fell within the scope of P.S. Sharma, where the Supreme Court held that such marginal differences, attributable to natural variability in sample distribution, cannot justify criminal penalties.
For the Respondent
The Government Advocate argued that Section 46(3) is directory, not mandatory, and cited T.V. Usman v. Food Inspector, Tellicherry Municipality to support this view. He further contended that the deviation of 1.2% was not marginal but significant, distinguishing it from the 1% difference in P.S. Sharma. He maintained that the Adjudicating Officer acted within statutory authority and that the delay, while unfortunate, did not vitiate the report’s validity.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a detailed examination of Section 46(3), which mandates that the Food Analyst shall submit the report within 14 days of receipt of the sample. The proviso requires the Analyst to inform the Designated Officer and the Commissioner of Food Safety if the report cannot be completed within that period, stating reasons and the expected time for completion. In the present case, no such intimation was made.
"The factum of the delay in preparation of report as also the expected time to submit report is required to be informed by the Food Analyst at time of expiry of 14 days period. In present case, no such explanation was furnished by the Food Analyst."
The Court noted that the analysis of the curd sample commenced only on the 14th day after receipt and concluded on 06/11/2023 - a period of over 80 days for analysis alone. This unexplained delay undermined the integrity of the sample and the reliability of the result.
The Court then turned to the substantive issue of deviation. The standard required MSNF of not less than 8.7%; the report found 7.5%, a difference of 1.2%. The Court held that this deviation was not materially different from the 1% difference in P.S. Sharma, where the Supreme Court observed that such minor discrepancies may arise due to uneven fat distribution in milk samples and should not be grounds for penal action. The Court emphasized:
"As per the Apex Court judgment in the case of P.S. Sharma (supra), this marginal difference should have been ignored by the Adjudicating Officer as also by the Principal District Judge."
The Court rejected the State’s argument that 1.2% was beyond the scope of P.S. Sharma, noting that the judgment did not fix a rigid threshold but focused on the nature of the deviation and the absence of evidence of intentional adulteration. The Court concluded that the procedural lapse and the marginal nature of the deviation together rendered the penalty unsustainable.
The Verdict
The appeal was allowed. The orders dated 31/12/2024 of the Adjudicating Officer and 26/03/2026 of the Principal District Judge were set aside. The fine of Rs.1,00,000 imposed on the appellant was quashed. No costs were awarded.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Procedural Compliance Is Non-Negotiable
Practitioners must now argue that any delay beyond 14 days under Section 46(3) without prior intimation renders the report inadmissible, regardless of the outcome.
The burden shifts to the prosecution to prove that the delay did not affect sample integrity - mere assertion is insufficient.
Marginal Deviations Cannot Justify Penalties
A deviation of up to 1.5% in nutritional parameters may be considered de minimis under P.S. Sharma, especially where no evidence of malice or adulteration exists.
Food safety authorities must distinguish between technical non-compliance and intentional violation before initiating prosecution.
Evidence Must Be Timely and Transparent
Laboratories must maintain internal logs of sample receipt, analysis commencement, and completion dates.
Any delay must be formally communicated to the Designated Officer with reasons - failure to do so is fatal to the prosecution’s case.
