$~76 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RSA 62/2026, CM APPL. 21857/2026 AJAY KUMAR .....Appellant Through: Ms. Prakriti Kapoor, Advocate. versus STATE OF NCT DELHI THROUGH FOOD OFFICERS & ANR. .....Respondents Through: CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA O R D E R % 06.04.2026 CM APPL. 21858/2026 (Seeking Exemption) 1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions. 2. The Application stands disposed of. RSA 62/2026 3. Regular Second Appeal under Section 71(6) of the Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006 has been filed on behalf of the Appellant to set aside the Order dated 10.09.2022 of learned Adjudicating Authority whereby a penalty of Rs.3,00,000/- has been imposed upon the Appellant, which has been upheld by the learned District & Sessions Judge/Appellate Tribunal, vide Order dated 06.01.2026. 4. An application under under Rule 3.1.1(3) of the Food Safety & Standards Rules, 2011 was filed by Sh. Naresh Kumar Sharma, Food Safety Officer (FSO), Department of Food Safety, Govt, of NCT of Delhi. According to the order of the concerned Adjudicating Authority, the appellant has violated the provisions of Sections 26(1) and 26(2) read with This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/04/2026 at 13:13:05 Section 3(1)(zx) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, and has also contravened Regulation No. 2.1.2.2.5 of the Food Safety and Standards (Food Products Standards and Food Additives) Regulations, 2011. The appellant has further committed a violation under Section 51 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 5. The facts in brief are that on 19.01.2021 at about 05:40 P.M, a Food Inspector visited the premises of M/s Adarsh Dairy, H-9, Vijay Chowk, Krishna Nagar, Delhi-110051, where the Food Business Operator (FBO) cum Proprietor, Sh. Ajay Kumar S/o Vinod Kumar Appellant, had the food articles were stored for sale for human consumption. The Food Inspector took a sample of approximately 2 liters of “mixed milk” from a covered 50- liter container, bearing no label declaration. The sample was taken after proper mixing the milk by pouring and re-pouring it from the container into a clean and dry dolu. 6. The sample was divided into four counterparts by putting it equally into four clean and dry glass bottles. Each glass bottle containing the sample was separately marked, packed, fastened and sealed by the FSO in accordance with the provisions of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. 7. The Appellant‟s signatures were obtained on the designated Officer‟s Slip bearing the signatures of the designated Officer and on the wrappers of the bottles containing the samples. The FSO also obtained signatures of the Appellant on the labels of all four counterparts of the sample. Form VA was prepared on the spot, and a copy was duly served upon the Appellant. A sum of Rs.100/- was paid to the Appellant, towards the price of the sample milk. 8. According to the Report, three counterparts out of four of the sample This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/04/2026 at 13:13:05 were deposited in a duly sealed condition. One sample was sent to the Food Analyst who in his Report No. FSS/85/21 dated 01.02.2021, opined that the milk fat was found to be 6.73% as against the prescribed standard of 4.5% and the milk solids not fat (SNF) were found to be 8.06% against the prescribed standard of 8.5%. Consequently, the total milk solids were found to be 14.09% instead of required 13%. The sample was found to be substandard as “Milk solids not fat is less than the prescribed minimum limit of 8.5”. 9. The Designated Officer vide his Letter dated 18.02.2021, forwarded the Report of the Food Analyst to the Appellant, granting him an opportunity to prefer an Appeal under Section 46(4) of the Act and to seek referral of one part of the sample to the Referral Food Laboratory, if so desired. However, no Appeal was preferred against the Report, within the prescribed period. 10. The Appellant was found to have violated Section 26(1) and 26(2) read with Section 3(1)(zx) of Food Safety and Standards Act and thus, committed violation of Section 51 of the Act. A Complaint was filed against the Appellant before the competent Adjudicating Authority, the Addl. District Magistrate, Shastri Nagar, Delhi. Upon adjudication, a penalty of Rs.3,00,000/- was imposed upon the Appellant. 11. Regular First Appeal was preferred before the Appellate Tribunal, which observed that since even marginal difference in food standards cannot be considered, regardless of the circumstances leading to such deviation, no illegality was found in the impugned Order and the Appeal was dismissed. 12. The grounds of Appeal/ Substantial Question of Law raised by the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/04/2026 at 13:13:05 Appellant, are as under: (i) Whether the Adjudicating Authority and the Appellate Authority erroneously held Appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 51 of the Act? (ii) Whether the food sample was taken against the mandatory sampling procedure particularly in the absence of proper homogenization of the milk fat sampling, and can such sample be relied upon for imposing a penalty upon the Appellant? (iii) Whether marginal variation from the prescribed standard in the absence of any food adulteration or that the food was unsafe can attract penalty under Section 51 of the Food Safety and Standards Act? (iv) Whether the Appellate Authority erred in law in treating the statement of the Appellant as an admission or plea of guilt, without recording any voluntary and conscious admission in accordance with the procedure established by law? 13. Reliance is placed on Union of India vs. T.R. Varma, AIR 1957 SC 882; The Administrator, City of Nagpur vs. Laxman & Anr. 1948-1997 SC FAC 8 (Criminal Appeal No.132 of 1986, Supreme Court of India); State (Delhi Administration) vs. Ram Singh & Ors. 2009 FAC 371 (Delhi High Court); MCD vs. Jawal lal 1980 FAC 145 and Ishwar Singh vs. State of Haryana, 1990 (1) FAC. Submissions heard and record perused. 14. It is not in dispute that the Food Safety Inspector visited the premises of the Appellant on 19.01.2021 at about 05:40 p.m. and had taken a sample of 2 liters of milk from a container of 50 liters, after proper mixing the milk This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/04/2026 at 13:13:05 by pouring and re-pouring it from the container into a clean and dry dolu. On sample was sent for examination, and the Food Analyst vide his Report dated 01.02.2021, opined that the “Milk solids not fat, is less than the prescribed minimum limit of 8.5”. Consequently, the Appellant was convicted by the Adjudicating Office/ADM East and his Appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, did not meet any success. 15. First and foremost, it may be pointed out that this is a Second Regular Appeal wherein essentially, the questions of law are to be considered. 16. The first ground of challenge by the Appellant is that the manner of taking the sample was erroneous as it was not homogenized before taking the sample, which is a mandatory requirement. It was argued that as per the Bureau of Indian Standards, milk is a perishable and heterogeneous food article, in which natural separation of cream and solids occurs over time. It is, therefore, essential that the milk is properly stirred and homogenized before any sample is taken. In case, there is no adequate homogenization, the sample may not represent the true composition of the bulk milk. The milk had not been churned properly before taking the sample and, therefore, the method of taking the sample itself, was defective. 17. However, in the Complaint, as well as, in the Order of learned ADM, it has been specifically mentioned that the sample was taken after mixing it by pouring and repouring from the container into a clean and „dry steel dolu‟. This aspect has also been considered by the learned Appellate Court. It being a finding of fact, and there can be no revisiting on this aspect, in the present Appeal. 18. The second ground taken by the Appellant is that the marginal variations from the prescribed standards, do not attract the penalty of This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/04/2026 at 13:13:05 Section 51 of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. The learned Appellate Authority/District Judge in its impugned Judgment, has rightly referred to the Judgment of Raj Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No.1541 of 2019 dated 04.10.2019 of Supreme Court of India wherein reference was made to Kerala vs. Parameswaran Pillai Vasudevan Nair 1974 Lawsuit(Ker) 68 or 1974 Supreme (Ker) 109. wherein Full Bench of Kerala High Court, had first highlighted the significance and the importance of Food Safety Act. It was observed that the standards for food safety are calculated meticulously and even a slightest adulteration in any food product can have a deleterious health effect on the health of the consumer. The extent of variation is of little consequence, while considering the extent of contamination. Furthermore, the Act itself does not provide any variable punishment for less or more deviation from the prescribed standards. 19. In the present case, it has been clearly found that the milk fat was found to be 6.73% as against the prescribed standard of 4.5% and the milk solids not fat (SNF) were found to be 8.06% against the prescribed standard of 8.5%. Consequently, the total milk solids were found to be 14.09% instead of required 13%. The Appellant was found to have violated Section 26(1) and 26(2) read with Section 3(1) (zx) of Food Safety and Standards Act and thus, committed violation of Section 51 of the Act. 20. There is a clear Report of Food Analyst specifying that the food sample did not meet the prescribed standards. It has been rightly noted by the ADM that though, Notice was given to the Appellant about the Report and the second sample for re-examination was also available, the Appellant chose not to seek re-examination of the second sample thereby, reflecting his guilt. It is in this context; it has been observed that the Appellant This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/04/2026 at 13:13:05 “pleaded guilty”. 21. The perusal of the entire record shows that there was no formal voluntary plea of guilt ever made by the Appellant as has been erroneously observed by the learned ADM, which has been replicated by the learned Appellate Tribunal. Though, there may not be a plea of guilt, but the record amply proved that the sample did not meet the prescribed standards. 22. In the present Appeal as well, there is no challenge to the correctness of the Report, and the only challenge is to the methodology of taking the sample, which is claimed to be not correct, which as already observed, is not established by the record. 23. In the circumstances, there are no grounds for challenge to the Order on merits and no substantial Question of law has been raised. However, considering the totality of the circumstances, the fine is reduced to Rs.50,000/-, to be paid within 3 months failing which, it be recovered as per law. 24. The Appeal is disposed of accordingly. Pending Application, if any, also stands disposed of. NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J. APRIL 06, 2026/VA/RS This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/04/2026 at 13:13:05