Maggi Noodles Row Ends: Delhi High Court Scraps 2015 Criminal Proceedings

The Delhi High Court has quashed two criminal complaints arising out of the 2015 nationwide Maggi Noodles controversy, along with the trial court's summoning orders and all consequential proceedings, holding that continuation of the prosecutions would amount to an abuse of the process of law after the very foundation of the cases had substantially eroded.

Justice Madhu Jain allowed petitions filed by Dharmendra Hansraj Kotak and others, setting aside the criminal complaints, the summoning orders dated November 6, 2015 and January 11, 2016, as well as all subsequent proceedings pending before the trial court.

The Court held that in light of subsequent judicial developments, including the Bombay High Court's decision setting aside the Maggi ban, the Supreme Court's directions for fresh testing by the Central Food Technological Research Institute (CFTRI), and subsequent proceedings before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), allowing the 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 observed while exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The prosecutions stemmed from samples of Maggi Noodles collected by Delhi's Food Safety Department during the nationwide sampling exercise in May 2015.

The Food Analyst had reported that the lead content in the masala tastemaker exceeded the prescribed limit of 2.5 ppm. In one of the complaints, allegations of misbranding were also made on account of the "No Added MSG" declaration. Based on these reports, criminal complaints were instituted alleging violations of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.

The petitioners contended that the prosecutions rested solely on Food Analyst reports that had lost their legal basis after the Bombay High Court held that the laboratories forming the basis of the nationwide ban did not satisfy statutory requirements under the Food Safety and Standards Act.

They further argued that fresh testing by accredited laboratories, followed by testing by CFTRI pursuant to Supreme Court directions, found the lead content to be within permissible limits, thereby undermining the prosecution's case.
The State opposed the petitions, arguing that the complaints were filed after following the prescribed statutory procedure and that the petitioners had failed to exercise their right to seek referral analysis at the relevant time.

It also maintained that the later judicial decisions relating to the nationwide ban did not automatically invalidate individual criminal prosecutions arising from samples collected in Delhi.

After examining the record, the High Court noted that the prosecution was founded entirely on the Food Analyst's reports declaring the samples "unsafe" because of alleged excess lead content. It observed that the controversy subsequently underwent extensive judicial scrutiny before the Bombay High Court, which held that laboratories conducting analysis under the Food Safety and Standards Act must be both NABL-accredited and notified under Section 43 of the Act before directing fresh testing through accredited laboratories.
The Court further noted that the Supreme Court had directed fresh scientific evaluation of the samples by CSIR-CFTRI, Mysuru, a notified Referral Food Laboratory, and later held that the CFTRI report should form the basis for adjudication before the NCDRC. The consumer proceedings ultimately culminated in dismissal of the complaint instituted by the Union of India after considering the CFTRI reports.

Observing that the present complaints arose out of the very same nationwide sampling exercise of 2015 and relied exclusively on the original Food Analyst reports, the High Court held that the evidentiary value of those reports stood substantially diluted once fresh scientific evaluation was conducted under the Supreme Court's supervision.

Rejecting the State's contention that the criminal cases should proceed independently, the Court said that although criminal proceedings ordinarily continue on their own footing, the High Court could not ignore subsequent scientific findings and judicial developments while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC where the very scientific foundation of the prosecution had been revisited through a constitutionally supervised process.

The Court also referred to recent decisions of the Himachal Pradesh High Court and the Uttarakhand High Court, which had similarly quashed criminal proceedings arising from the same Maggi Noodles controversy, relying on the CFTRI reports and the Supreme Court's directions.

Expressing agreement with those decisions, the Delhi High Court concluded that continuation of the prosecutions would amount to an abuse of the process of law. 

Read More: Nestle India Denies Maggi Contamination Allegations Following Regulatory FSSAI Notice