The Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSSA) governs the manufacture, storage, sale, distribution and import of food. A case usually starts when a Food Safety Officer draws a sample and the Food Analyst reports that the food is unsafe, sub-standard or misbranded. Depending on the contravention, the matter goes either to an Adjudicating Officer, who can impose a money penalty, or to a criminal court, which can impose imprisonment.
These cases affect restaurants, manufacturers, distributors, importers and retailers, and the officers in charge of their units. We act for food businesses and their officers, and for complainants.
Two routes: adjudication or prosecution
After scrutinising the Food Analyst's report, the Designated Officer decides under Section 42(3) whether the contravention is punishable with imprisonment or with fine only. Penalty cases go to an Adjudicating Officer, an officer not below the rank of Additional District Magistrate notified under Section 68. The Adjudicating Officer must give a reasonable opportunity to make a representation, has the powers of a civil court, and fixes the penalty with regard to the guidelines in Section 49.
- Sub-standard food: penalty up to five lakh rupees (Section 51).
- Misbranded food: penalty up to three lakh rupees, with a possible direction to correct the label or destroy the food (Section 52).
- Possessing an adulterant: penalty up to two lakh rupees, or up to ten lakh rupees if the adulterant is injurious to health (Section 57).
- Business without a licence: since 7 November 2023, a penalty up to ten lakh rupees (Section 63).
Unsafe food: the criminal offence
Section 59 punishes anyone who manufactures for sale, stores, sells, distributes or imports unsafe food for human consumption. The punishment depends on the harm caused.
- No injury: imprisonment up to three months and a fine up to three lakh rupees (as amended by Act 18 of 2023 from 7 November 2023).
- Non-grievous injury: up to one year and a fine up to three lakh rupees.
- Grievous injury: up to six years and a fine up to five lakh rupees.
- Death: not less than seven years, up to life, and a fine of not less than ten lakh rupees.
Sampling and the right to a second analysis
Under Section 47(1), the Food Safety Officer must give written notice of the intention to analyse, divide the sample into four parts, and seal and mark each part with the signature or thumb impression of the person sampled. One part goes to the Food Analyst, two go to the Designated Officer for safe custody, and the fourth goes to an accredited laboratory if the food business operator asks for it. If the two reports differ, the Designated Officer sends a part to a referral laboratory, whose decision is final. The sample must reach the Food Analyst by the next working day.
The Food Analyst must report within fourteen days of receipt under Section 46(3). Section 46(4) allows an appeal against the Food Analyst's report to the Designated Officer, who may refer the matter to a referral food laboratory.
How a prosecution is launched
Section 42 sets the sequence. The Designated Officer sends recommendations within fourteen days to the Commissioner of Food Safety for sanction of prosecution. The Commissioner decides whether the case goes to a court of ordinary jurisdiction (offences punishable up to three years) or a Special Court (more than three years, where one exists). The Food Safety Officer then launches the prosecution.
Section 77 bars a court from taking cognizance after one year from the date of the offence. The Commissioner may, for reasons recorded in writing, approve prosecution within an extended period of up to three years.
Liability of companies
Section 66 makes the company and every person in charge of and responsible to it for the conduct of its business liable for an offence by the company. Where the company has different establishments, branches or units, the head or person in charge nominated by the company as responsible for food safety is liable for that unit. A person escapes punishment by proving lack of knowledge or due diligence. A director, manager or other officer whose consent, connivance or neglect led to the offence is also liable.
Relationship with IPC and BNS food adulteration offences
Sections 272 and 273 of the IPC (now Sections 274 and 275 of the BNS) punish adulteration of food and sale of noxious food. Section 89 of the FSSA gives the Act overriding effect over any inconsistent law.
In Ram Nath v. State of Uttar Pradesh ([2024] 2 S.C.R. 743), the Supreme Court held that because of Section 89, Section 59 of the FSSA overrides Sections 272 and 273 of the IPC, so there can be no simultaneous prosecution under both. The court quashed the IPC prosecutions with liberty to proceed under the FSSA. It distinguished State of Maharashtra v. Sayyed Hassan Sayyed Subhan (2019) 18 SCC 145, where the court had said there is no bar to trial under two enactments and that the bar is only to punishing the offender twice.
In M/s A.K. Sarkar & Co. v. State of West Bengal (2024 INSC 186), the court upheld a misbranding conviction under the repealed Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 but converted the imprisonment to a fine, noting that Section 52 of the FSSA provides only a money penalty for misbranded food.
Stages of the case
- 1
Sampling
Notice and four sealed parts under Section 47(1).
- 2
Analysis
Food Analyst's report within fourteen days; appeal to the Designated Officer under Section 46(4).
- 3
Designated Officer's decision
Penalty or imprisonment route decided under Section 42(3); recommendation to the Commissioner within fourteen days.
- 4
Sanction
The Commissioner of Food Safety decides on prosecution and the forum under Section 42(4).
- 5
Adjudication or trial
Before the Adjudicating Officer under Section 68, or a criminal court within the Section 77 time limit.
Supreme Court decisions
Ram Nath v. State of Uttar Pradesh[2024] 2 S.C.R. 743
Section 59 of the FSSA overrides Sections 272 and 273 of the IPC, so both cannot be prosecuted together.
State of Maharashtra v. Sayyed Hassan Sayyed Subhan(2019) 18 SCC 145
Breach of FSSA orders can also be prosecuted under the IPC; the only bar is on punishing the offender twice.
M/s A.K. Sarkar & Co. v. State of West Bengal2024 INSC 186
A misbranding sentence under the old Act was reduced to a fine because the FSSA provides only a penalty.
Questions
Will a misbranding or sub-standard food finding lead to jail?
Under Sections 51 and 52 these contraventions carry money penalties imposed by the Adjudicating Officer. Imprisonment applies to offences such as unsafe food under Section 59.
Can I get my sample tested again?
Yes. Under Section 47(1) you can ask for one part to be sent to an accredited laboratory, and differing reports go to a referral laboratory. Section 46(4) also allows an appeal against the Food Analyst's report to the Designated Officer.
Is there a time limit for prosecution?
A court cannot take cognizance after one year from the date of the offence, unless the Commissioner of Food Safety, for written reasons, approves prosecution within an extended period of up to three years (Section 77).
Can the police prosecute food adulteration under the IPC or BNS?
Ram Nath holds that Section 59 of the FSSA overrides Sections 272 and 273 of the IPC, now Sections 274 and 275 of the BNS, so a parallel IPC prosecution for the same conduct was quashed.
This guide is general information on Indian criminal law as at 21 October 2026. It is not legal advice on any particular case.