1. Introduction and Objectives

Food adulteration poses a grave threat to public health and the economy. The primary objective of this SOP is to ensure that Food Safety Officers (FSOs) and police officers conduct investigations that are scientifically sound and legally sustainable.

The goal is to establish:

• The presence of an adulterant (substituent, additive, or contaminant).
• The “Chain of Custody” from the point of seizure to the laboratory.
• The culpability of the manufacturer, distributor, and retailer.

2. Legal Framework

Investigations are governed by a dual-layered legal structure:

• Substantive Law: Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (specifically Sections 26, 27, 50-59).
• Procedural Law: BNSS (for search, seizure, and arrest protocols).
• Evidentiary Law: BSA (for the admissibility of scientific reports and digital evidence).
• Penal Provisions: Sections 274 to 276 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) (pertaining to the sale of noxious food or drink).
• In the event of a death caused by adulterated food, Section 59(iv) of the FSSA, 2006, applies, carrying a penalty of seven years to life imprisonment and a minimum ₹10 lakh fine. Simultaneously, Section 106(1) of the BNS, 2023, covers death by negligence, while Section 275 addresses the sale of noxious food.

3. Legal Authority for Investigation: FSSA vs. BNS

The primary authority to investigate food-related offences is vested in the Food Safety Officer (FSO) under the FSSA, 2006. In Ram Nath v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2024), the Supreme Court clarified that the FSSA is a special statute with an overriding effect (Section 89), specifically ruling that the police cannot register an FIR under general law for acts like adulteration or the sale of noxious food (formerly IPC Section 272/273, now covered by Section 274/275 BNS), as these are superseded by Section 59 of the FSSA.

However, the police retain jurisdiction if the act constitutes a distinct criminal offence under the BNS, such as death by negligence (Section 106) or cheating, as established in State of Maharashtra v. Sayyed Hassan Sayyed Subhan (2018). In serious cases involving death or grievous injury under FSSA Section 59(iv), the offence is cognisable and non-bailable; here, the police play a supportive role by registering an FIR under the BNSS and assisting in enforcement, though the substantive prosecution for the food violation must still adhere to FSSA procedures. This legal principle remains unchanged and applies equally under the new criminal law framework (BNS/BNSS).

4. Initiation of Investigation

A. Intelligence and Surveillance

Information may be gathered through:

• Consumer complaints via the ” Food Safety Compliance System (FoSCoS) Portal”
• Surveillance sampling by the Food Department.
• Hospital reports indicating a cluster of food poisoning cases.

B. Formation of the Raid Team

A joint team should be constituted, including:

• The Designated Officer (DO) or Food Safety Officer (FSO).
• Police personnel (to maintain order and assist in seizure).
• At least two independent public witnesses (to attest to the seizure under Section 185 of BNSS).
• A videographer to record the entire proceeding (mandatory under Section 105 of BNSS).

5. Search and Seizure Protocols

A. Entry and Inspection

Upon entering the premises (factory, warehouse, or retail shop), the FSO must:

• Show their identity card and the authorisation to search.
• Observe the sanitary conditions (often a precursor to contamination).
• Identify all areas where food is processed, stored, or packaged.

B. Sampling Procedure (The Critical Step)

Under Section 47 of the FSSA, the sampling must follow a “Rule of Four”:

• Selection: Samples must be representative of the entire lot.
• Division: The sample must be divided into four equal parts.
• Sealing: Each part must be sealed in a clean, dry container. A paper slip signed by the FSO and the vendor must be wrapped around the neck of the jar.
• Distribution:
  1. One part to the food analyst.
  2. Two parts to the Designated Officer (for backup/referral).
  3. One part to an accredited private lab (if requested by the vendor).

C. Seizure of Documents and Digital Evidence

• Invoices/Bills: To establish the source of the adulterated food (tracing the supply chain).
• Production Logs: To identify batch numbers.
• CCTV/Digital Records: Seize DVRs if they show the mixing of prohibited substances. Ensure a Section 63 BSA Certificate is prepared for all electronic extractions.

6. Technical Investigation and Analysis

A. Laboratory Referral

The FSO must send the first part of the sample to the food analyst within 24 hours. The analysis report must be delivered within 14 days.

B. Types of Adulteration to Check

• Intentional: Addition of urea in milk, brick powder in chilli, or argemone oil in mustard oil.
• Incidental: Pesticide residues, heavy metals (lead, arsenic), or fungal toxins (aflatoxins).
• Metallic: Iron filings in tea leaves.

7. Identification of the Accused

The “Target Hierarchy” must be established:

• The Vendor: The immediate seller.
• The Distributor/Wholesaler: Based on the invoices seized.
• The Manufacturer: The ultimate source.
• The Nominee: Under Section 66 of the FSSA, companies must appoint a “Nominee” responsible for food safety. This person is the primary accused for the corporation.

8. Recording Statements

Statements should be recorded under Section 180 of BNSS. Key questions include the following:

• Where was the raw material procured?
• Are there quality control checks in place?
• Who is responsible for the specific batch found to be adulterated?

9. Administrative and Criminal Proceedings

Depending on the analyst’s report, cases are categorised into the following:

A. Adjudication (Substandard/Misbranded Food)

If the food is “substandard” or “misbranded” but not “unsafe”, the case is filed before the adjudicating officer (usually an additional district magistrate). Penalties are purely monetary.

B. Prosecution (Unsafe Food)

If the food is found “unsafe” (likely to cause injury), a criminal complaint is filed in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate.

• Filing the Complaint: The FSO must obtain “Sanction for Prosecution” from the Commissioner of Food Safety.
• Trial: The analyst’s report is considered “conclusive evidence” unless challenged by the accused via a referral laboratory.

10. Common Impediments

• Perishability: Food evidence decays rapidly. Failure to maintain a cold chain during transport to the lab can invalidate the analysis.
• Source Anonymity: Adulterants are often bought from the “unorganised sector” without bills, making it hard to track the manufacturer.
• Technical Sophistication: New-age adulterants (like synthetic milk) are designed to bypass standard laboratory tests.

11. Conclusion and Checklist for IOs.

To ensure a successful conviction, the investigating officer must verify the following:

• Were the samples divided into four parts in the presence of the vendor?
• Is the videography of the seizure compliant with Section 105 BNSS?
• Was the “Memorandum of Seizure” signed by independent witnesses?
• Was the sample sent to the analyst within the 24-hour window?
• Is there a clear link (invoice) between the retailer and the manufacturer?

By strictly adhering to this SOP, investigative agencies can ensure that those who compromise public health for profit are held accountable under the stringent provisions of the law.