The Delhi High Court has quashed two criminal complaints arising from the 2015 Maggi Noodles controversy, holding that subsequent scientific testing and a series of judicial decisions had substantially weakened the evidentiary foundation on which the prosecutions were based.
In an order last week, justice Madhu Jain allowed two petitions filed by the accused and set aside the criminal complaints, the trial court's orders summoning them and all consequential proceedings. "Once the original analytical reports became the subject matter of judicial scrutiny and fresh testing was directed through a referral food laboratory recognised under the statute, the evidentiary value of the earlier reports necessarily stood diluted. The subsequent scientific evaluation undertaken under the supervision of the Supreme Court cannot be ignored while examining whether continuation of the present criminal proceedings would serve the ends of justice," the bench said.
The court also quashed the trial court's orders of 30 November 2022 which had rejected the accused's applications seeking discharge. The proceedings originated from samples of Maggi Noodles collected from retail outlets in Delhi during the nationwide sampling exercise in May 2015.
The ruling brings an end to the Delhi criminal proceedings that had remained pending for more than a decade.
Cases Were Built on 2015 Laboratory Reports
The two cases concerned samples collected on 25 May 2015, from retail establishments in Delhi. The food analyst's reports, issued on 2nd June that year, classified the samples as unsafe, alleging that lead in the masala tastemaker was above the prescribed maximum limit of 2.5ppm (parts per million).
One of the complaints also alleged misbranding because the product label bore the declaration 'No Added MSG'.
The food safety department subsequently traced the distribution chain and initiated prosecution against persons associated with the retail outlets and the supplying and manufacturing entities. The complaints alleged violations of provisions of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.
The additional chief metropolitan magistrate issued summons in the two cases through orders on 6 November 2015 and 11 January 2016. The accused later sought discharge, but the trial court rejected those applications in November 2022.
The accused then approached the High Court under its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking termination of the prosecutions.
Later Testing Changed Evidentiary Picture
A central issue before the High Court was whether the original food analyst reports could still sustain criminal proceedings following subsequent judicially supervised testing of Maggi samples.
The controversy had already reached the Bombay High Court in 2015. In its judgment concerning the nationwide regulatory action against Maggi, the court held that laboratories whose reports had formed the basis of the action were required to meet statutory requirements relating to accreditation and notification. It subsequently set aside the impugned ban orders and directed fresh testing through laboratories meeting the prescribed requirements.
The matter later reached the Supreme Court, which directed that Maggi samples be examined by the Mysore-based Central Food Technological Research Institute (CFTRI), a referral food laboratory recognised under the Food Safety and Standards Act.
The Supreme Court specifically required CFTRI to examine lead and glutamic acid levels and clarify whether the testing also covered monosodium glutamate. It also provided for additional sampling if required.
The Supreme Court subsequently directed that the CFTRI report should form the basis of adjudication before the national consumer disputes redressal commission (NCDRC). The consumer proceedings eventually concluded after NCDRC considered the CFTRI findings.
The accused relied on the subsequent testing to argue that the original reports could no longer form a sustainable basis for criminal prosecution.
Justice Jain found that the Delhi complaints could not be considered in isolation from the later scientific and judicial developments.
The court noted that the Delhi cases arose from the same nationwide sampling exercise conducted in May 2015 and that the prosecution had no independent evidence of adulteration beyond the original food analyst reports.
The court said the later testing conducted through a statutory referral food laboratory under the supervision of the Supreme Court had to be taken into account when determining whether it was justifiable to continue the criminal cases.
The High Court further rejected the argument that the Delhi prosecutions should necessarily continue simply because they involved separately collected samples.
It held that although criminal cases ordinarily proceed independently, courts cannot disregard subsequent developments when the scientific basis of a prosecution has itself been examined through a process supervised by constitutional courts.
State Argued Delhi Cases Were Independent
The Delhi government opposed the petitions, maintaining that the sampling had been conducted according to the procedure prescribed under the Food Safety and Standards Act and that the food analyst reports provided sufficient material for the trial court to take cognisance.
The government also argued that the accused had been given an opportunity to seek referral analysis but had not exercised that right within the prescribed period.
It further contended that the Bombay High Court and Supreme Court proceedings related to the wider nationwide regulatory action and should not automatically extinguish criminal cases arising from samples separately collected in Delhi.
It also maintained that questions concerning the validity and evidentiary value of the laboratory reports should be examined during trial rather than in proceedings under Section 482 CrPC.
The High Court, however, found the circumstances of the Delhi cases sufficiently connected to the later scientific developments to justify intervention.
The Delhi High Court also considered rulings from the Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand High Courts involving criminal proceedings arising from the same Maggi controversy.
The Himachal Pradesh High Court had held that continuation of prosecutions based on earlier State laboratory reports could amount to abuse of the legal process once the lead issue had subsequently been examined through CFTRI reports obtained pursuant to Supreme Court directions.
The Uttarakhand High Court had adopted a similar approach in another Maggi-related prosecution. Justice Jain said the Delhi High Court agreed with the reasoning adopted in those cases.
The Delhi High Court acknowledged that its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC is to be exercised sparingly. However, it noted that the provision can be used where continuation of criminal proceedings would constitute an abuse of the process of law or where the basis of the prosecution has effectively disappeared.
The court referred to the Supreme Court's decisions in State of Haryana vs Bhajan Lal and Rajiv Thapar vs Madan Lal Kapoor while considering the scope of this power.
In the present matter, the court concluded that allowing the cases to proceed to trial would serve no meaningful purpose because the prosecution's original scientific foundation had been substantially overtaken by subsequent developments.
"Having regard to the subsequent orders passed by the Bombay High Court, the directions issued by the 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 court said.
It added that forcing the petitioners to undergo a prolonged criminal trial despite the erosion of the prosecution's foundation would amount to an abuse of the court's process.
The decision marks another chapter in one of India's most prominent food-safety controversies which began with the nationwide Maggi recall and regulatory action in 2015 and has since led to proceedings before multiple courts and consumer forums.
