Sections 60 and 62 explained: this guide covers what it means, who it applies to, the step-by-step process, documents required, fees, due dates and penalties in India — so you can stay compliant with confidence and avoid costly mistakes.
Section 60 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 punishes a person who retains, removes or tampers with anything the Food Safety Officer (FSO) has seized, without the FSO's permission. Section 62 punishes a person who, without reasonable excuse, resists, obstructs, impersonates, threatens, intimidates or assaults an FSO who is exercising functions under the Act. Both are criminal provisions with imprisonment and fine.
Section 60: anyone who, without the FSO's permission, retains, removes or tampers with seized food, vehicle, equipment, package, labelling or advertising material is punishable with imprisonment up to six months and fine up to Rs 2 lakh. Section 62: anyone who without reasonable excuse resists, obstructs, impersonates, threatens, intimidates or assaults an FSO is punishable with imprisonment up to three months and fine up to Rs 1 lakh. Neither section was changed by the Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2023.
The two sections at a glance
| Point | Section 60 | Section 62 |
|---|---|---|
| Heading | Punishment for interfering with seized items | Punishment for obstructing or impersonating a Food Safety Officer |
| Conduct | Retains, removes or tampers with seized things without FSO's permission | Resists, obstructs or attempts to obstruct, impersonates, threatens, intimidates or assaults an FSO |
| Qualifier | "without the permission of the Food Safety Officer" | "without reasonable excuse"; FSO must be exercising functions under the Act |
| Imprisonment | Up to six months | Up to three months |
| Fine | Up to Rs 2 lakh | Up to Rs 1 lakh |
| Imprisonment and fine | "and also with fine", so both can be imposed | Same |
Section 60: interfering with seized items
What the text says
"If a person without the permission of the Food Safety Officer, retains, removes or tampers with any food, vehicle, equipment, package or labelling or advertising material or other thing that has been seized under this Act, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months and also with fine which may extend to two lakh rupees."
What is covered
The section protects whatever was seized under the Act. The list is wide: food, a vehicle, equipment, packages, labelling or advertising material, and "other thing". Seizure itself is governed by section 38 (see our note on seizure and destruction of unsafe food) and the procedure after it by sections 41 and 42.
Three verbs matter.
- Retains. Keeping seized stock when it should be handed over or held as directed.
- Removes. Moving seized stock from the place where it was kept or sealed.
- Tampers. Altering, relabelling, repacking, opening or otherwise changing the seized item.
The permission must come from the FSO. A verbal assurance from a shop employee, or a belief that the seizure is wrong, is not permission. If you think the seizure is unjustified, the remedy lies in the procedures of the Act and the courts, not in moving the stock; a penalty and adjudication adviser can help you choose the right route.
A related rule on stock in your custody
Where seized food is left in the custody of the food business operator, the Rules deal with a bond not to dispose of the stock. That is covered in our upcoming article on the seizure receipt and bond under the FSS Rules, 2011. Breaking the conditions of that arrangement is the kind of conduct section 60 is aimed at.
Example. An FSO seizes forty cartons of a packaged product and leaves them locked in the godown. The next morning the operator quietly moves twenty cartons to another warehouse. That is removal of seized stock without the FSO's permission, and the operator is exposed to section 60.
Section 62: obstructing or impersonating an FSO
What the text says
"If a person without reasonable excuse, resists, obstructs, or attempts to obstruct, impersonate, threaten, intimidate or assault a Food Safety Officer in exercising his functions under this Act, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months and also with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees."
Conduct covered
The section lists seven acts: resist, obstruct, attempt to obstruct, impersonate, threaten, intimidate and assault. They fall into two groups.
- Interference with an inspection. Refusing entry, locking the premises, hiding records, or physically blocking the FSO from drawing a sample can amount to resisting or obstructing.
- Personal acts against the officer. Threats, intimidation and assault, and, separately, passing oneself off as an FSO.
The two limits in the text
- "Without reasonable excuse." The section does not punish every refusal. Whether an excuse is reasonable is for the court to decide on the facts.
- "In exercising his functions under this Act." The officer must be acting under the Act. The FSO's powers include entry, inspection, taking samples and seizure under sections 38 and 47, read with section 29 (see our article on authorities responsible for enforcement).
The "impersonate" limb is notable: it also protects the public from a person who poses as an FSO. A cooperative approach to an inspection does not prevent you from asking an officer to identify himself; it is sensible to do so and to record the name.
Example. An FSO arrives to draw a sample. The manager tells the staff to lock the gate and says the officer cannot enter. If the court finds there was no reasonable excuse, this is obstruction under section 62.
A correction on older posts
An older post on this site titled with "section 60" is about obstructing the FSO, which is section 62. The numbers used in this article follow the Act: s.60 is seized items, s.62 is obstruction and impersonation. The older post is at obstructing a Food Safety Officer.
Procedure and what follows a conviction
Both sections are worded as punishments ("punishable with imprisonment ... and also with fine"), so they are offences tried by a court, not matters for the Adjudicating Officer. Prosecution is governed by section 42 and, for the time limit, section 77 (see our article on appeal and time limits). A second conviction for the same offence brings the enhanced consequences in section 64, including cancellation of licence (see sections 58 and 64).
The Act refers to the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the Indian Penal Code. From 1 July 2024 these are replaced by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and references in the Act are now read as references to the new laws.
Need help with a notice or an inspection dispute?
If an FSO has seized stock or alleged obstruction, TaxClue can review the notice and the record of the inspection and explain where you stand. See our penalty and adjudication support page.
Key takeaways
- Section 60: no retaining, removing or tampering with seized things without the FSO's permission; up to six months and Rs 2 lakh.
- Section 62: no resisting, obstructing, impersonating, threatening, intimidating or assaulting an FSO; up to three months and Rs 1 lakh.
- Section 62 applies where there is no reasonable excuse and the FSO is exercising functions under the Act.
- Both are court offences; a repeat conviction attracts section 64.
- Challenge a seizure through legal remedies, never by moving the stock.
Read next
- Sections 58 and 64: residuary penalty and subsequent offences
- Section 65: compensation for injury or death of a consumer
- Seizure and destruction of unsafe food by the FSO
- Penalty for false information in an FSSAI application
Disclaimer: Based on the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 as enacted, read with the Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2023 where it applies (ss.59, 61 and 63 only; ss.60 and 62 are unchanged). Verify current notifications, regulations and FSSAI orders before acting.