The Uttarakhand High Court has set aside a ₹3 lakh penalty imposed on PepsiCo India Holdings by the State Food Safety Department, ruling that the authorities failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish that the company’s product was “misbranded” under the Food Safety and Standards (FSS) Act, 2006.
Background of the Case
The case dates back to 2015, when a Food Safety Officer in Uttarakhand’s Pauri Garhwal district inspected a packet of Lehar Bhujia carrying the label “Maha Value.” Following laboratory analysis, the product was declared “misbranded” under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.
Based on the findings, an adjudicating officer imposed a penalty of ₹1.5 lakh each on PepsiCo India Holdings and its manufacturing partner in 2018. The order was later upheld by the State Food Safety Appellate Tribunal in 2024.
High Court’s Observations
While hearing the matter, the Uttarakhand High Court observed that the authorities had imposed the penalty by merely referring to the relevant provisions of the Food Safety and Standards Act without explaining how the phrase “Maha Value” could mislead consumers.
The Court emphasized that declaring a product as “misbranded” requires clear reasoning supported by evidence and scientific analysis. It held that simply citing statutory provisions is not sufficient to establish misbranding.
PepsiCo’s Argument Accepted
PepsiCo argued that the term “Maha Value” was intended to describe the quantity or value offered by the pack and did not make any claim regarding the product’s quality or composition.
The High Court accepted this submission, noting that such expressions are more closely related to packaging and quantity declarations governed by the Legal Metrology Act, rather than falling within the scope of the Food Safety and Standards Act.
Penalty Set Aside
Based on its findings, the High Court quashed the ₹3 lakh penalty imposed on PepsiCo India Holdings and its manufacturing partner, bringing an end to the long-running dispute that originated over a decade ago.
Why This Judgment Matters
The ruling reinforces the principle that regulatory authorities must provide clear and evidence-based justification before classifying a product as “misbranded.” It also highlights the distinction between food safety regulations and legal metrology requirements, offering greater clarity for food businesses on labeling practices and regulatory compliance.
📢 Be Aware, We never charge any consultancy fee for jobs.
📲 Foodtech Network WhatsApp Jobs Group
Click to join the WhatsApp group
👥Free Membership (For Jobs, Internship and Training)
Membership registration
⚙️ Food Entrepreneurs & Startups (For business owners)
Our services (Free and Paid)
📱 Food safety training and certification.
Check our training portal and enroll now
