Delhi High Court drops cases against retailers over 2015 Maggi ‘MSG’ content controversy

When the investigation was completed, separate complaints were filed before the trial court against the shops from where the samples were lifted. The trial court found enough reasons to proceed against the accused persons and directed issuance of summons for the offences alleged under the FSS Act.

Justice Madhu Jain held that the scientific evaluation of Maggi samples undertaken in the supervision of Supreme Court could not be ignored while deciding the case.

As the proceedings were pending, the accused persons filed pleas and sought discharge in the case, but the plea was dismissed. Aggrieved by the complaints filed and the continuing legal proceedings, the accused persons came to the Delhi High Court.

Probe

During the course of investigation, the Food Safety Department traced the chain of distribution of the food article. It was alleged that the sampled product had been supplied by M/s Dhingra Brothers, a partnership firm, through its responsible partners, and had been manufactured by M/s Nestlé India Limited. The prosecution further alleged that the nominated representatives of the manufacturing company, as well as the persons stated to be responsible for the day-to-day affairs of the supplier firm and the retail establishments, were liable for prosecution under the provisions of the FSS Act.

The court referred to the Bombay High Court judgment lifting the ban on Maggi noodles after finding that the reports forming the basis of the regulatory action suffered from “serious legal infirmities”.

The matter eventually reached the Supreme Court, which on January 16, 2016, directed the Central Food Technological Research Institute (CFTRI) to specifically examine whether the lead content and glutamic acid levels were within the permissible parameters and to clarify whether the testing undertaken also covered monosodium glutamate (MSG).

While disposing the matter, the Supreme Court in 2019, ordered that the CFTRI’s finding would become the basis of the proceedings filed by the Centre before National Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC). The NCDRC held that there was no evidence to establish that Maggi Noodles was unsafe and accepted the reports of the Referral Food Laboratory as conclusive.

“These developments cannot be viewed in isolation. The complaints before this Court arise out of the very same nationwide sampling exercise undertaken during May, 2015. The allegations, the alleged analytical deficiencies and the scientific issues are substantially identical. The prosecution does not rely upon any independent evidence of adulteration apart from the Food Analyst’s reports generated during the original sampling exercise,” the Delhi High Court said.

‘Lead Within limit’

Advocates Rajesh Batra and Sonia Kukreja appearing for the accused persons submitted that the very basis of the case did not exist as the Bombay High Court by its judgment passed on August 13, 2015 had set aside the ban imposed on Maggi Noodles. The counsel stated that after the directions of the Bombay High Court, fresh samples of Maggi Noodles were drawn and tested by three accredited and notified laboratories, as per their report the lead content in the product was within the limit.

The counsel also contended that proceedings relating to the same controversy were also considered in Supreme Court, where samples were directed to be analysed by the Central Food Technological Research Institute (CFTRI), Mysore, and those reports also found the lead content was in prescribed limit. The counsel also urged that the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission while deciding the consumer proceedings arising out of the same controversy, also held that there was no evidence to establish that Maggi Noodles was unsafe. 

Advocate Digam Singh Dagar representing the state submitted that the sampling proceedings were conducted strictly in accordance with the provisions of the FSS Act. The counsel also contended that the subsequent judgments of the Bombay High Court, the Supreme Court and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission do not automatically cancel out the cases against the accused persons. According to the counsel, the case had happened in a different factual context concerning the nationwide recall and ban imposed on Maggi Noodles.