Delhi Court Acquits Restaurant Owner In Food Safety Prosecution Over "Synthetic Colour" In Chicken Gravy, Holds Referral Lab Report Lacks Legal Sanctity
The Court held that a report which does not state its testing methodology, does not quantify the colour found and does not rule out "carry over" from permitted ingredients cannot sustain a conviction for selling unsafe food. It also found that the Designated Officer breached the 14-day timeline under Section 42(3) of the FSS Act.

​​The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-01, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, has acquitted the proprietor of a restaurant in R.K. Puram who was prosecuted under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. The prosecution alleged that a sample of chicken gravy contained synthetic colour. The Court held that the Referral Food Laboratory's report was legally unreliable and that the prosecution had also failed to follow the mandatory procedure under Section 42(3) of the Act.

The judgment was pronounced by Mr. Pranav Joshi, ACJM-01, on 30th September 2026 in Ct. Case No. 5536/2020. The complaint was instituted on 20th July 2020, and judgment was reserved on 1st June 2026.

​

BACKGROUND​

As per the prosecution's case, on 18th July 2018 a team of Food Safety Officers inspected M/s Khalsa Restaurant, R.K. Puram, New Delhi, and took a sample of about 2 kg of "Chicken Gravy". The gravy was stored in an open steel container for use in preparing chicken curry. The sample was divided into four counterparts, sealed and labelled. One part was sent to the Food Analyst, Govt. of NCT of Delhi.

The Food Analyst reported on 30th July 2018 that the sample was "unsafe" because it was coloured with synthetic colouring matter, Sunset Yellow FCF. The Food Business Operator appealed against this report, and a counterpart was sent to the Referral Food Laboratory (RFL), Kolkata. The RFL certificate dated 2nd November 2018 declared the sample unsafe under Section 3(1)(zz)(vii) of the Act on the finding that "Synthetic Colour" was present.

The Commissioner, Department of Food Safety, granted extensions of time under Section 77 of the Act and later sanctioned prosecution under Section 42(4)(a). The complaint was filed on 20th July 2020 for offences under Sections 26(1) and 26(2)(i), read with Sections 3(1)(zz)(v) and (vii), punishable under Section 59(i) of the FSS Act. Notice was served on 22nd July 2022, and the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

The prosecution examined four witnesses (PW-1 to PW-4), including the Food Safety Officers who drew the sample and the Designated Officer. The accused led no defence evidence.

​​

COURT'S OBSERVATION

After hearing both sides and perusing the record, the Court identified the following defects in the prosecution's case.

• No methodology stated in the RFL report. It was undisputed that the RFL report mentioned only "FSSAI Manual" and did not state the methods of testing. The Court held that Section 42(2) of the FSS Act and Rule 2.4.2(5) of the FSS Rules, 2011 require the methods of sampling and analysis to appear on the report. Relying on Harshadkumar Somabhai Modi v. State of Gujarat (2016 1 FAC 91) and the Madhya Pradesh High Court's decision in Prahladdas v. State of M.P. (2019 1 FAC 80), it held that a report which omits its methodology cannot be accepted. The Madhya Pradesh High Court had held that such an omission goes to the root of the matter.

• Presence of synthetic colour was not enough. The article was proprietary food, and the accused's own Form VA declared "ginger garlic paste" as an ingredient. Under Regulation 4.2.2.6 of the FSS (Food Products Standards and Food Additives) Regulations, 2011, vegetable paste falls under a category where Sunset Yellow is permitted up to 50 ppm. The Court noted that:

  • The expert gave no finding on how much synthetic colour was present.

  • The expert did not say whether the colour came from the "carry over" of additives in permitted raw materials (Regulation 3.1.18 and Regulation 3.1.1(10)) or was directly added.

  • The expert did not determine the chemical class of the colour.

The Court held that simply finding synthetic colour was not sufficient, since its presence could be incidental carry over and not a violation of the Regulations.

• Prescribed procedure not followed in the analysis. As per the FSSAI Manual for Food Additives, colours must first be extracted, then separated and identified, before the synthetic colour is determined. The RFL report was completely silent on the separation of colours. The Court held that it "can by no means be accepted as one having legal sanctity."

• Breach of Section 42(3). Section 42(3) requires the Designated Officer to send the report to the Commissioner of Food Safety within 14 days for sanction. The RFL report was received on 6th November 2018, but nothing in the sanction order showed that the file was put up within 14 days. The Court held that this indicated non-compliance with Section 42(3).

​​

HELD

The Court acquitted the accused, Harbans Singh, of the offences under Sections 26(1) and 26(2)(i), read with Sections 3(1)(zz)(v) and (vii), punishable under Section 59(i) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.

The judgment also annexed the illustrative charts of witnesses, exhibits and material objects, in compliance with Manojbhai Jetabhai Parmar (Rohit) v. State of Gujarat (2025 INSC 1433) and the Delhi High Court's Practice Directions dated 26th May 2026.

​​

​

Case Title: Food Safety Officer v. Harbans Singh
Case No.: Ct. Case No. 5536/2020
Coram: Justice Pranav Joshi, ACJM-01
Date of Judgment: September 30, 2026