The Little Snowfall in Hill

Recognition and accreditation of laboratories,
research institutions and referral food laboratory

1. 1The Food Authority may notify food laboratories and research
institutions accredited by National Accreditation Board for Testing and
Calibration Laboratories or any other accreditation agency for the
purposes of carrying out analysis of samples by the Food Analysts
under this Act.
2. The Food Authority shall, establish or recognise by notification, one or
more referral food laboratory or laboratories to carry out the functions
entrusted to the referral food laboratory by this Act or any rules and
regulations made thereunder.
3. The Food Authority may frame regulations specifying –
1. The functions of food laboratory and referral food laboratory and
the local area or areas within which such functions may be
carried out;
2. The procedure for submission to the said laboratory of samples
of articles of food for analysis or tests, the forms of the
laboratory’s reports thereon and the fees payable in respect of
such reports; and
3. Such other matters as may be necessary or expedient to enable
the said laboratory to carry out its functions effectively.
Legal cases related to the subject:-

2
Prem Prakash Prajapati vs Food Safety And Standard ... on 16 October, 2017
Vide RTI application dated 02.11.2016, the appellant sought copy of the document
mentioning the ground on that basis an accreditation body is recognised by FSSAI and a
copy of document on that basis FSSAI write as "NABL accredited" instead of "Lab
accredited as per ISO/IEC-17025" while NABL is a trade name. CPIO vide letter dated
05.12.2016 informed the appellant that as per section 43(1) of FSSA,2006 The Food
Authority may notify food laboratories and research institutions accredited by National
Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration Laboratories or any other accreditation
agency for the purposes of carrying out analysis of sample by the Food Analysts under
this Act", Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed an appeal. The FAO vide order dated
1
https://foodsafetyhelpline.com/2013/03/recognition-and-accreditation-of-laboratories-research-institutions-
and-referral-food-laboratory/
2
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/124489836/
29.12.2016 upheld the decision of CPIO. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant approached the
Commission.
3
M/S Nestle India Limited vs The Food Safety And Standards ... on 13
August, 2015
Petitioner - Company is seeking an appropriate writ, order and direction for quashing and
setting aside the order passed by the Chief Executive Officer - Respondent No.2 herein
dated 05/06/2015 whereby Petitioner was directed to stop manufacture, sale and
distribution etc of nine types of variants of noodles manufactured by them and also gave
other directions by the impugned order which is at Exhibit-A to the Petition.
Petitioner is also challenging the impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Food
Safety, State of Maharashtra - Respondent No. 4 which is at Exhibit-B.
1. Petitioner has challenged these two impugned orders principally on the following five
grounds:-
(i) Firstly, it was contended that the said two impugned orders have been passed in complete
violation of principles of natural justice since Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had not issued any
show cause notice to the Petitioner and had not given any particulars on the basis of which
they proposed to pass the impugned orders. It was contended that Petitioner's
representatives were called by Respondent No.2 at his Office on 05/06/2015 and they
were WPL/1688/2015 informed about the result of analysis made by the Food Laboratories
and, thereafter, the impugned order (Exhibit-A) was passed. It was contended that the said
order was completely arbitrary, capricious and it was passed in undue haste.
(ii) Secondly, it was contended that the reports of the Food Laboratories on the basis of
which the impugned order (Exhibit-A) was passed were either not accredited by NBAL or
notified under section 43 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 ("the Act") and even
if some Food Laboratories were accredited, they did not have accreditation for the purpose
of testing lead in the product.
(iii) Thirdly, it was contended that the product had to be tested according to the intended
use and this was not done and, therefore, no reliance could be placed on the said reports.
(iv) Fourthly, the Petitioner contended that it had tested the samples of batches in its own
accredited laboratory and the results showed WPL/1688/2015 that the lead contained in the
product was well within the permissible limits.
(v) Lastly, it was contended that there was no question of challenging the analysis made by
the Food Analyst in the Food Laboratory by filing an appeal under section 46(4) of the Act
since by the final impugned orders Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had already pre-determined
the issue and, therefore, Petitioner had no other option but to challenge the orders at
Exhibit-A and Exhibit-B.
3
4
Sambhagiye Nagrik Upbhokta ... vs Union Of India, on 1 October, 2014
This PIL has been filed by an organisation named as Sambhagiye Nagrik Upbhokta
Margdarshan Manch.
The petitioner prayed a relief that the State Government be directed to comply the
provisions of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (hereinafter called as 'Act of 2006') and
the rules made thereunder. The State Government shall appoint Designated Officer, Food
Commissioner and Food Analyst in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 2006 and
the rules made thereunder. The Food Laboratory established in the State of Madhya Pradesh
be notified in accordance with law.
5
Mukesh Kumar Gupta vs State Of M.P. on 17 April, 2017This petition
under Section 482 of CrPC has been filed for quashing the complaint filed by the Food
Safety Officer against the applicant for offences under Sections 26, 27 & 51 of the Food
Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (in short 'FSS Act 2006').
The necessary facts for the disposal of the present petition in short are that the Food Safety
Officer had taken a sample of coriander powder on 15.12.2011 and the said food article
was sent for chemical analysis to State Food Testing Laboratory, Bhopal. A report dated
30.12.2011 from the State Food Testing Laboratory, Bhopal was received, according to
which, the sample was found to be of sub-standard quality. Accordingly, after completing
the formalities, the complaint was filed.
It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that total ash (on dry) in the coriander
powder was found 7.5% whereas the standard prescribed is 7% and since the difference is
only 0.5%, therefore, there is a possibility of error of judgment in analysis. Thus, prima
facie, no case is made outM.Cr.C.No.5289/2012 against the applicant warranting his
prosecution. It is further submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the State Food
Testing Laboratory, Bhopal is not accredited by National Accreditation Board for Testing
and Calibration Laboratories or recognized by the Food Authority under Section 43 of FSS
Act, 2006, therefore, the report given by the State Food Testing Laboratory, Bhopal is not
admissible in law and Chaturbhuj Meena has not been appointed as Food Analyst under
Section 45 of FSS Act, 2006.
4
5

The Little Snowfall in Hill

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Little Snowfall in Hill

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Little Snowfall in Hill

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Recognition and accreditation of laboratories,

research institutions and referral food laboratory

Legal cases related to the subject:-

You might also like