The Delhi High Court has dismissed two criminal complaints that emerged from the 2015 Maggi Noodles controversy, stating that ongoing prosecutions would amount to an abuse of legal processes. This ruling comes after the court granted petitions from Dharmendra Hansraj Kotak and others, invalidating the criminal complaints and previous summoning orders issued on November 6, 2015, and January 11, 2016.

Justice Madhu Jain indicated that the basis for the prosecution had eroded significantly, particularly in light of subsequent judicial developments. Notably, this includes the Bombay High Court’s reversal of the Maggi ban and the Supreme Court’s mandate for fresh testing by the Central Food Technological Research Institute (CFTRI).

The bench indicated that further legal action would no longer hold any value, emphasising that the continuation of complaints would unjustly prolong the petitioners’ involvement in trials despite substantial weakening of the case’s foundation.

Background of the Complaints

The criminal actions stemmed from samples of Maggi Noodles collected by the Food Safety Department in May 2015 during a national sampling initiative. Reports indicated that the lead content in the masala tastemaker exceeded the permissible limit of 2.5 ppm, along with allegations of misbranding due to the “No Added MSG” claim. Following these findings, criminal complaints were filed alleging violations of the Food Safety and Standards Act of 2006.

Petitioners argued that the foundation of the prosecutions rested solely on Food Analyst reports that had lost their legal standing. The Bombay High Court asserted that the laboratories responsible for the tests did not meet requirements under the Food Safety and Standards Act.

They also highlighted that, after a series of retesting by accredited laboratories and the CFTRI, results confirmed that lead content was within permissible levels, further undermining the prosecutions. Meanwhile, the state maintained that the complaints adhered to proper statutory procedures and that the petitioners had not exercised their rights to seek alternative analyses previously.

Judicial Developments and Final Ruling

Upon reviewing the case records, the High Court established that the prosecution was dependent on the Food Analyst’s reports claiming the samples were “unsafe” due to excessive lead levels. The court noted that significant judicial scrutiny had taken place, leading to the Bombay High Court’s determinations regarding laboratory accreditation and direct instructions for re-evaluation by CFTRI.

Moreover, the Supreme Court had specified that the findings from CFTRI should serve as the foundation for future proceedings. The consumer disputes ultimately culminated in the dismissal of the complaint filed by the Union of India after considering CFTRI reports.

Citing that the current complaints were rooted in the same sampling exercise from 2015, the court concluded the evidentiary weight of the original Food Analyst reports had considerably diminished given the new scientific evaluations conducted under the Supreme Court’s supervision.

The High Court rejected the state’s argument for independent continuation of the criminal cases, asserting that subsequent findings and judicial rulings could not be overlooked. It also referred to comparable decisions from the Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand High Courts, which had dismissed cases related to the same Maggi controversy, concluding that allowing prosecutions to persist would constitute an abuse of legal processes.

Long or Short, get news the way you like. No ads. No redirections. Download Newspin and Stay Alert, The CSR Journal Mobile app, for fast, crisp, clean updates!

App Store –  https://apps.apple.com/in/app/newspin/id6746449540 

Google Play Store – https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.inventifweb.newspin&pcampaignid=web_share