Maggi Lead Controversy: Delhi HC Quashes Criminal Complaints Under Section 482 CrPC

Justice Madhu Jain allowed petitions filed by the accused, setting aside the complaints, the summoning orders dated November 6, 2015 and January 11, 2016, the orders dismissing their discharge applications, and all consequential proceedings pending before the trial court.

The Court was dealing with prosecutions instituted under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, concerning Maggi Noodles samples collected from retail outlets in Delhi during the nationwide sampling exercise undertaken in May 2015.

The prosecution was founded on Food Analyst reports dated June 2, 2015, which declared the samples “unsafe” on the ground that the lead content in the masala tastemaker exceeded the prescribed limit of 2.5 ppm. One of the complaints also alleged misbranding on account of the declaration “No Added MSG”.

The petitioners invoked the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, contending that the very scientific basis of the prosecution had subsequently been undermined by a series of judicial and scientific developments.

Original Maggi test reports subsequently undermined

The petitioners relied on the Bombay High Court’s 2015 judgment setting aside the nationwide ban on Maggi Noodles, which had found that the laboratories whose reports formed the basis of the regulatory action did not satisfy the statutory requirements under the FSS Act, including accreditation and notification requirements.

They further relied on subsequent fresh testing of Maggi samples by accredited and notified laboratories, followed by testing by the Central Food Technological Research Institute (CFTRI), Mysore, a Referral Food Laboratory under the FSS Act.

The CFTRI reports found the lead content to be within the permissible limit of 2.5 ppm. The Supreme Court subsequently directed that the CFTRI reports form the basis for adjudication in the related proceedings. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) also considered the CFTRI findings while dealing with the consumer proceedings arising from the controversy.

The petitioners argued that under Section 46(4) of the FSS Act, a report of the Referral Food Laboratory supersedes the original Food Analyst report. Therefore, once the subsequent referral analysis found the product compliant with prescribed standards, the original reports could no longer sustain criminal prosecution.

Delhi HC: Foundation of prosecution had substantially eroded

The High Court accepted the petitioners’ contention that the subsequent scientific and judicial developments could not be ignored while deciding whether the criminal proceedings should continue.

The Court observed: “Having regard to the subsequent orders passed by the Bombay High Court, the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court resulting in fresh analysis through CFTRI, the culmination of the proceedings before the NCDRC and the subsequent decisions rendered by the Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand High Courts, this Court is of the considered view that permitting the present prosecutions to continue would serve no useful purpose. The continuation of the complaints would merely compel the petitioners to undergo a protracted criminal trial despite the very foundation of the prosecution having substantially eroded”.

The Court noted that the present complaints arose from the same 2015 nationwide sampling exercise and were founded entirely on the original Food Analyst reports. In contrast, the subsequent scientific evaluation carried out pursuant to the Supreme Court’s directions had found the lead content within permissible limits.

State argued cases should proceed independently

The State opposed the petitions, arguing that the Delhi prosecutions had been instituted after following the procedure prescribed under the FSS Act and that the accused had not exercised their right to seek referral analysis within the prescribed period.

It further argued that subsequent judgments concerning the nationwide Maggi ban did not automatically invalidate independent criminal prosecutions arising from samples separately collected in Delhi.

The High Court, however, rejected the contention in the peculiar facts of the case.

It held that while the power under Section 482 CrPC must be exercised sparingly, it can be invoked where continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law or where the very foundation of the prosecution has ceased to exist.

The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s judgments in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor in examining the scope of its inherent jurisdiction.

Similar proceedings already quashed by other High Courts

The Delhi High Court also took note of subsequent decisions of the Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand High Courts, which had quashed criminal proceedings arising from the same Maggi controversy after considering the CFTRI reports and the Supreme Court’s directions.

The Court found that the evidentiary value of the original Delhi Food Laboratory reports had been substantially diluted by the subsequent scientific evaluation undertaken under the supervision of the Supreme Court.

It therefore concluded that compelling the accused to undergo a prolonged criminal trial on the basis of reports whose evidentiary foundation had been overtaken by subsequent scientific findings would serve no useful purpose.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the petitions and quashed the two criminal complaints, the summoning orders dated November 6, 2015 and January 11, 2016, the consequential proceedings and the orders passed by the trial court dismissing the accused’s discharge applications.

The ruling brings the decade-old Delhi criminal proceedings arising from the 2015 Maggi lead-content controversy to an end.