FSSAI Penalty Appeal: Adjudicating Officer to High Court

A food safety penalty in India is not decided by a court. It is decided by an officer not below the rank of Additional District Magistrate, sitting as the Adjudicating Officer for the district where the offence is alleged to have happened. Knowing that changes where you go, what you file, and how long you have.

Most guidance stops at the words appeal to the Food Safety Appellate Tribunal. This page sets out the whole ladder, from the first representation to the High Court, with the deadlines and the one relief that exists specifically for small vendors.

The ladder, in order

Stage Who Section The rule that matters
Adjudication An officer not below the rank of Additional District Magistrate of the district where the alleged offence is committed, notified by the State Government 68(1) Notified in the manner prescribed by the Central Government
Your defence The same officer 68(2) Penalty only after a reasonable opportunity for making representation
First appeal Food Safety Appellate Tribunal 70(1) Established by the Central or State Government by notification, to hear appeals from decisions of the Adjudicating Officer under section 68
Who sits on it One person only, the Presiding Officer 70(3) Nobody is qualified unless he is or has been a District Judge
Second appeal High Court 71(6) Within sixty days of communication of the Tribunal's decision, on any question of fact or law
Late second appeal High Court 71(6) proviso A further period not exceeding sixty days on sufficient cause

Section 72 explains why this ladder is the only route. No civil court has jurisdiction over any matter that an Adjudicating Officer or the Tribunal is empowered to determine, and no court or other authority may grant an injunction in respect of any action taken or to be taken under the Act. Going to a civil judge is not an alternative.

What the Adjudicating Officer can and cannot do

Section 68(3) gives the officer the powers of a civil court, and puts two consequences beyond argument:

  • All proceedings before him shall be deemed to be judicial proceedings within the meaning of sections 193 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code, 45 of 1860
  • He shall be deemed to be a court for the purposes of sections 345 and 346 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, 2 of 1974

So a false statement in front of him is not a casual matter. It is made in a proceeding the statute treats as judicial.

Section 68(2) is the limit on his power. He may impose a penalty only after giving the person a reasonable opportunity for making representation in the matter, and only if satisfied on inquiry that the contravention happened.

Section 49 is your argument on the amount. Section 68(4) requires the Adjudicating Officer, and section 49 requires the Tribunal too, to have due regard to five things when fixing the quantum: the amount of gain or unfair advantage, wherever quantifiable, made as a result of the contravention; the amount of loss caused or likely to be caused to any person; the repetitive nature of the contravention; whether the contravention is without his knowledge; and any other relevant factor. Clause (d) is the one small businesses under-use. If a supplier's mislabelled stock got you here, say so and evidence it.

The relief written specifically for small vendors

Section 69 is a compounding power, and it is drafted for exactly one group of people.

Under section 69(1), the Commissioner of Food Safety may by order empower the Designated Officer to accept, from petty manufacturers who themselves manufacture and sell any article of food, retailers, hawkers, itinerant vendors and temporary stall holders, a payment by way of composition of the offence they are suspected of having committed.

  1. The effect is final. Section 69(2) says that on payment of that sum, the suspected person, if in custody, shall be discharged, and no further proceedings in respect of the offence shall be taken against him.
  2. There is a hard ceiling. Section 69(3) caps the composition at ₹1 lakh, and requires due regard to the same section 49 guidelines.
  3. It has one exclusion. The proviso to section 69(3) says no offence for which punishment of imprisonment has been prescribed under the Act shall be compounded.

That last line is the boundary. Compounding is available for penalty offences, not for the imprisonment ones.

Inside the Tribunal

The Tribunal is deliberately informal, and section 71 says so.

Section 71(1): the Tribunal shall not be bound by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, but shall be guided by the principles of natural justice, and may regulate its own procedure, including the place at which it sits.

Section 71(2) then gives it the powers of a civil court under the CPC while trying a suit, for:

  • Summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath
  • Requiring the discovery and production of documents or other electronic records
  • Receiving evidence on affidavits
  • Issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses or documents
  • Reviewing its decisions
  • Dismissing an application for default or deciding it ex parte
  • Any other matter prescribed by the Central Government

Two more practical points. Section 71(4) lets the appellant appear in person, or authorise one or more legal practitioners, or any of its officers, to represent the case. You are not required to brief counsel. And section 71(5) applies the Limitation Act, 1963 to an appeal made to the Tribunal, except as otherwise provided in the Act.

The High Court appeal is unusually wide. Section 71(6) allows an appeal on any question of fact or law arising out of the Tribunal's order, not just a question of law. That is broader than many second appeals. The clock is sixty days from the date the decision or order is communicated to you, with a further period of up to sixty days available if the High Court is satisfied you were prevented by sufficient cause.

Following one penalty up the ladder. An illustration, not a real matter.

A small sweet shop is proceeded against for selling an article of food that is not of the quality demanded. Under section 50 that carries a penalty not exceeding ₹5 lakh.

The matter goes not to a court but to the Adjudicating Officer for the district, an officer not below the rank of Additional District Magistrate notified under section 68(1).

Before any penalty, section 68(2) entitles the owner to a reasonable opportunity of making a representation. He uses it to address section 49 directly: there was no quantifiable gain, the contravention was not repetitive, and it arose from a supplier's stock without his knowledge, which is clause (d).

If he is a retailer within the section 69(1) list, and the offence is not one for which imprisonment is prescribed, the Designated Officer, if empowered by the Commissioner of Food Safety, may accept a composition. Section 69(3) caps that at ₹1 lakh, and section 69(2) ends the proceedings on payment.

If a penalty is imposed instead, his appeal lies to the Food Safety Appellate Tribunal under section 70(1), before a Presiding Officer who is or has been a District Judge. He may appear in person under section 71(4).

From the Tribunal, section 71(6) gives him sixty days to appeal to the High Court on any question of fact or law, extendable by up to another sixty days for sufficient cause. What he cannot do, under section 72, is file a civil suit or seek an injunction.

Find out whether the machinery exists in your State

Both the Adjudicating Officer and the Tribunal depend on a State notification. Whether your State has notified them, and whether the Commissioner of Food Safety has empowered Designated Officers to compound, are questions of fact. 

To,
The Public Information Officer,
Office of the Commissioner of Food Safety,
Food Safety and Drug Administration Department,
[State] .

Subject: Information under Section 6(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 regarding
adjudication and appeals under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.

Sir/Madam,

Under Section 6(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, please provide:

1. A copy of the notification by which the State Government has notified the
   Adjudicating Officer under Section 68 for each district, with the
   designation of the officer.

2. A copy of the notification establishing the Food Safety Appellate Tribunal
   under Section 70 for this State, with the name of the Presiding Officer and
   the judicial office he holds or has held.

3. A copy of the order, if any, of the Commissioner of Food Safety under
   Section 69(1) empowering Designated Officers to accept composition, with the
   list of officers so empowered.

4. The number of cases compounded under Section 69 in the last three financial
   years, with the total amount accepted, and the number of cases in which
   composition was refused.

5. The number of penalties imposed by Adjudicating Officers under Section 68 in
   the last three financial years, with the total amount imposed and recovered.

6. The number of appeals filed before the Food Safety Appellate Tribunal in the
   last three financial years, the number decided, and the average time taken.

I enclose the prescribed application fee of ₹10. If any part of this
information is held by another public authority, please transfer that part
under Section 6(3) within five days. Please supply the information within the
period fixed by Section 7(1).

Yours faithfully,
[Name]
[Full postal address]
[Date]

Points 2 and 3 are the ones that decide whether the route above is real where you live. Build the application with the AI RTI Drafter, set the thirty-day deadline with the Timeline Tracker, and test a vague reply with the PIO Reply Checker. For the licence itself, see our guide to applying for an FSSAI food licence.

Where food businesses go wrong

  • Going to a civil court. Section 72 removes civil court jurisdiction over anything the Adjudicating Officer or the Tribunal can determine, and bars injunctions.
  • Skipping the representation. Section 68(2) gives you a reasonable opportunity to make one before any penalty. It is the cheapest stage of the whole ladder.
  • Arguing only that you are innocent. Section 49 makes the amount itself contestable on five listed grounds, including that the contravention was without your knowledge.
  • Assuming compounding is open to everyone. Section 69(1) lists petty manufacturers who themselves manufacture and sell, retailers, hawkers, itinerant vendors and temporary stall holders.
  • Trying to compound an imprisonment offence. The proviso to section 69(3) forbids it.
  • Missing the sixty days to the High Court. Section 71(6) runs from communication of the Tribunal's order, with at most a further sixty days for sufficient cause.
  • Hiring counsel because you assume you must. Section 71(4) lets you appear in person before the Tribunal.

Questions food businesses ask

Who actually imposes an FSSAI penalty?

An officer not below the rank of Additional District Magistrate of the district where the alleged offence is committed, notified by the State Government as the Adjudicating Officer under section 68(1), in the manner prescribed by the Central Government. Not a magistrate's court.

Can I appeal a penalty, and to whom?

Yes. Section 70(1) allows the Central or State Government to establish one or more Food Safety Appellate Tribunals to hear appeals from decisions of the Adjudicating Officer under section 68. Section 70(3) requires the single Presiding Officer to be, or to have been, a District Judge.

How long do I have to reach the High Court?

Sixty days from the date the Tribunal's decision or order is communicated to you, under section 71(6). The proviso allows the High Court to permit a further period not exceeding sixty days if satisfied you were prevented by sufficient cause.

Can a small vendor settle instead of fighting?

Section 69(1) allows the Commissioner of Food Safety to empower a Designated Officer to accept composition from petty manufacturers who themselves manufacture and sell food, retailers, hawkers, itinerant vendors and temporary stall holders. Section 69(3) caps the sum at ₹1 lakh, and the proviso excludes any offence for which imprisonment is prescribed.

What happens once I pay a composition amount?

Section 69(2) says that on payment, the suspected person, if in custody, shall be discharged and no further proceedings in respect of that offence shall be taken against him.

Do I need a lawyer at the Tribunal?

No. Section 71(4) allows the appellant to appear in person, or to authorise one or more legal practitioners or any of its officers to represent the case. Section 71(1) also frees the Tribunal from the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, subject to the principles of natural justice.

Are food offences ever tried in a criminal court?

Yes, separately. Section 73 provides that all offences not triable by a Special Court shall be tried in a summary way by a Judicial Magistrate of the first class or a Metropolitan Magistrate, applying sections 262 to 265 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and its proviso permits a sentence of imprisonment not exceeding one year on a summary conviction.

Sources

Reviewed by Dr. Shrawan Kumar Pathak. Last verified against the India Code text of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 on 30 August 2026.

Reader signal

Was this article useful?

Tap once if it helped you. These counters show other citizens which pages are worth reading.

- views