In a landmark judgment, the Allahabad High Court has ruled that a restaurant cannot be held liable for unsafe food ingredients if they were purchased in sealed packets from a registered manufacturer. The court observed that “if the ingredient of food in a sealed packet is found to be unsafe, then prima facie liability will be of its registered manufacturer or its distributor and not of the restaurant unless the seal of the packet or its invoice is disputed or doubted.”
The ruling came in response to a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) by Piyush Gupta and Another, challenging the summoning order issued by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Shahjahanpur. The case stemmed from an inspection of their restaurant on March 21, 2023, where food safety officials seized sealed packets of Goldiee Masala brand turmeric powder, which later tested positive for lead chromate, a hazardous substance.
Background of the Case
The Food Security Officer, Shahjahanpur, filed a complaint against the petitioners under Section 26(2)(i) and Section 59(1) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 after the Government Food Laboratory, Lucknow, found the turmeric powder to be unsafe for consumption. The Magistrate took cognizance of the complaint on February 16, 2024, summoning the restaurant owner and his employee.
However, the petitioners, represented by Senior Advocate Anil Tiwari and Advocate Kabeer Tiwari, contended that the restaurant had purchased the turmeric powder in sealed packets from a licensed manufacturer with a proper invoice and had merely used it as an ingredient in food preparation. They argued that liability for food contamination should rest with the manufacturer or distributor, not the end user who procured the product in good faith.
Legal Issues Before the Court
The case raised critical legal questions:
1. Can a restaurant be held liable under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, for using a contaminated food ingredient purchased in a sealed packet from a registered manufacturer?
2. Does a restaurant qualify as a ‘food business operator’ for raw materials stored for food preparation rather than direct sale?
3. What level of due diligence is required for a restaurant to be exempt from liability under food safety laws?
Court’s Observations and Ruling
After hearing both sides, Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal ruled in favor of the petitioners, stating that a restaurant cannot be held liable for food adulteration if it has exercised due diligence in procuring food ingredients from a licensed manufacturer. The court emphasized that the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, holds the manufacturer accountable for ensuring product safety, particularly when the product is sold in sealed packets.
The court further noted:
– “A restaurant, which carries out the activity of food service, falls within the definition of ‘food business operator’ only in relation to the food it prepares, not for the individual ingredients unless it sells them separately.”
– “If a food business operator purchases a food ingredient in a sealed packet with an invoice from a registered manufacturer, it is presumed to be of standard quality. If the ingredient is later found to be unsafe, the manufacturer or distributor bears the responsibility, not the restaurant.”
– “The liability of a restaurant in such cases is not absolute but conditional on whether it had any reason to suspect the food ingredient’s quality.”
Final Verdict
The High Court quashed the proceedings against the petitioners, clarifying that the lower court may proceed against the manufacturer or distributor of the contaminated turmeric powder, who failed to maintain quality standards despite issuing an invoice guaranteeing its safety.
This ruling sets an important precedent for the food service industry, reinforcing that liability for unsafe food ingredients rests with manufacturers and distributors unless the restaurant is found to have knowingly used or tampered with contaminated products.
Case Details:
– Case Title: Piyush Gupta and Another vs. State of U.P. and Another
– Case No.: 482(A) No. 25418 of 2024
– Bench: Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal
– Petitioners’ Counsel: Senior Advocate Anil Tiwari, assisted by Advocate Kabeer Tiwari
– Respondent’s Counsel: Additional Government Advocate Pankaj Saxena
