Uttarakhand HC Quashes Maggi Noodles Prosecutions Against Nestlé: Lab Lacked Statutory Competence, Cognizance Barred by Limitation
The High Court of Uttarakhand quashed twelve Section 482 applications challenging complaints under the Food Safety and Standards Act, citing an incompetent laboratory, limitation breach, and defective prosecution sanction.
The High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital has quashed all criminal complaints, cognizance orders, summoning orders, and consequential proceedings against Nestlé India Limited and its officer Harsimran Singh arising from the 2015 Maggi noodles controversy. Justice Alok Mahra, sitting singly, decided twelve applications together on 21 May 2026 through a common judgment. The prosecution had been launched under Sections 52 and 59 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate courts at Dehradun and Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar. The court found the entire prosecution rested on a laboratory report from a facility that was neither NABL accredited nor notified by FSSAI under Section 43 of the FSS Act — a defect the Bombay High Court had already identified in 2015 while striking down the nationwide Maggi ban.
Twelve Applications, One Controversy
The twelve applications under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were filed in two batches: four by Nestlé India Limited and three by Harsimran Singh in 2019, followed by five more by M/s Nestlé India Limited in 2023. All challenged proceedings initiated pursuant to reports concerning alleged non-conformity of “MAGGI 2-Minute Noodles.”
The lead matter, Criminal Misc. Application No. 1355 of 2019, arose from Complaint No. 2217 of 2016 dated 11 March 2016 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rudrapur. Cognizance had been taken and process issued on 27 April 2016 for offences under Sections 3(1)(zf)(C)(i) and 3(1)(zz)(v) read with Sections 26(2), 27, and 66 of the FSS Act, punishable under Sections 52 and 59.
Nestlé India's registered office is in New Delhi; its manufacturing facility is in Punjab; and its depot is at Rishikesh, Uttarakhand. The complaint arrayed the applicant-company twice — once through its Rishikesh depot and again as manufacturer through its Punjab unit — along with the vendor M/s S.K. Agencies as accused no. 1.
What the Food Safety Officer Did in May 2015
On 30 May 2015, a Food Safety Officer collected samples of Maggi 2-Minute Noodles and forwarded one part to the Food Analyst at Rudrapur, depositing the remainder before the Designated Officer, Udham Singh Nagar, along with Form VI. The Food Analyst, Rudrapur, issued a report dated 14 August 2015 opining that the sample was “misbranded” and “unsafe.” On the strength of that report, sanction for prosecution was granted on 24 February 2016 and the complaint followed on 11 March 2016.
Meanwhile, in May 2015, following media concerns about Maggi noodles, FSSAI had directed all State Food Safety Commissioners to collect and test samples through FSSAI-notified and NABL-accredited laboratories. According to the applicants, Uttarakhand authorities instead forwarded samples to the State Food and Drug Testing Laboratory, Rudrapur, which was neither NABL accredited nor FSSAI-notified at the relevant time.
Nestlé voluntarily withdrew Maggi Noodles from the market on 4 June 2015 and issued a press release the following day. FSSAI simultaneously passed an order on 5 June 2015 directing withdrawal, recall, and restraint on further manufacture and sale of all variants of Maggi Noodles.
The Bombay High Court Judgment and Its Consequences
Nestlé challenged the FSSAI ban and related Maharashtra orders before the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 1688 of 2015. That court allowed the petition on 13 August 2015 and set aside the ban orders on two principal grounds: the samples had not been analysed by laboratories satisfying the twin statutory conditions of NABL accreditation and FSSAI notification under Sections 3(1)(p) and 43 of the FSS Act; and there was no material to establish that Monosodium Glutamate had been deliberately added by Nestlé.
The Bombay High Court directed fresh sampling and testing through three accredited and notified laboratories. Samples were drawn from the Moga, Punjab manufacturing facility. Reports from all three accredited referral laboratories confirmed that lead levels were within permissible limits. Nestlé resumed manufacture and sale of Maggi Noodles from November 2015.
Separately, the Union of India initiated proceedings before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission alleging sale of defective and unsafe products. The Supreme Court, during those proceedings, directed testing through CFTRI, Mysore, a recognised referral laboratory. The CFTRI reports confirmed compliance with all applicable standards and permissible lead content limits. The Supreme Court, while disposing of Civil Appeal No. 14539 of 2015, held that the CFTRI reports would constitute the basis for adjudication before the NCDRC. The consumer complaint was ultimately dismissed.
The MSG Question and the FSSAI Clarification
On the Monosodium Glutamate allegation, the applicants placed on record that Regulation 3.1.11 of the Food Safety and Standards (Food Products Standards and Food Additives) Regulations, 2011 permits use of MSG in seasoning for noodles as per Good Manufacturing Practices. They further contended that glutamate occurs naturally in several food substances and that no scientific analytical method exists to distinguish between naturally occurring glutamate and artificially added MSG.
FSSAI itself issued a clarification dated 31 March 2016 directing all Commissioners of Food Safety not to initiate prosecution merely on detection of glutamate or MSG in noodle products unless it was independently ascertained that MSG had in fact been deliberately added during manufacture. An inspection conducted by Food Safety Department officials of Uttarakhand at the Pantnagar facility on 28 November 2016 found that MSG was not being added during the manufacturing process of Maggi Noodles.
Four Grounds That Dismantled the Prosecution
Justice Mahra identified four independent infirmities, each sufficient to vitiate the proceedings.
Incompetent laboratory. Sections 3(1)(p) and 43 of the FSS Act together require that a “Food Laboratory” be both NABL accredited and recognised or notified by the Food Authority. There was no material on record showing that the State Food and Drug Testing Laboratory, Rudrapur, met either condition at the time it analysed the impugned sample in 2015. Once the Food Analyst's report — the very foundation of the prosecution — was legally unsustainable, continuation of proceedings on its basis amounted to abuse of process.
Defective company prosecution under Section 66. Section 66 of the FSS Act provides that where an offence is committed by a company, the company “as well as” every person responsible for conduct of its business shall be deemed guilty. The court noted the settled position in Aneeta Hada v. Godfather Travels & Tours Pvt. Ltd. and Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v. State of Madhya Pradesh that prosecution of officers or nominees without arraigning the company itself is not maintainable except in exceptional circumstances. The complaints did not satisfy this mandatory requirement, making continuation of proceedings against the applicants alone legally impermissible.
Cognizance barred by limitation. Section 77 of the FSS Act mandates that no court shall take cognizance of an offence after expiry of one year from the date of commission, unless the Commissioner of Food Safety extends the period up to three years by recording reasons in writing. The sample was drawn in May/June 2015; the complaint was instituted in March 2016; and cognizance was taken on 27 April 2016. No material was placed on record showing that the Commissioner of Food Safety had recorded reasons in writing extending the limitation period. The court held Section 77 to be mandatory, rendering cognizance taken beyond the prescribed period without valid extension legally unsustainable.
Defective sanction under Section 42. Section 42 of the FSS Act requires sanction for prosecution from the Commissioner of Food Safety. In the present case, sanction was accorded by the Chief Medical Officer, who was not shown to have been duly authorised in accordance with law. Relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in A.K. Roy v. State of Punjab, the court held that where a statute prescribes a particular mode for institution of prosecution, it must be strictly complied with and no further sub-delegation is permissible unless expressly authorised by statute. No material demonstrated lawful delegation of powers to the Chief Medical Officer for this purpose.
Section 482 Jurisdiction and the Court's View
The court recalled that inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of court and to secure the ends of justice where allegations are manifestly untenable. It drew on the Supreme Court's decisions in Prashant Bharti v. State (NCT of Delhi), Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor, and Anand Kumar Mohatta v. State (NCT of Delhi) in this regard.
The court observed that continuation of the impugned proceedings despite these legal and procedural infirmities would serve no useful purpose and would subject the applicants to unnecessary harassment and a protracted criminal trial otherwise bound to fail.
Order
All twelve applications were allowed. The court quashed the impugned complaints, cognizance orders, summoning orders, and all consequential proceedings against the applicants under Sections 52 and 59 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. Complaint No. 2217 of 2016 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar, stands quashed. The applicants are discharged from all the aforesaid proceedings. All pending applications also stand disposed of.