Section 80 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 80 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 lists the defences a person can raise in a prosecution under the Act, and those that are not available. It has five parts: (A) a defence for publishers of advertisements, (B) the defence of due diligence, (C) no defence of mistaken but reasonable belief, (D) a defence on handling food for section 56, and (E) no defence of ignorance of the nature, substance or quality of food.
Available: (A) a publisher who carried on the business of publishing advertisements and published in the ordinary course; (B) a person who proves all reasonable precautions and all due diligence; (D) for an offence under section 56, proof that the food was destroyed or disposed of immediately after it was handled in a way likely to make it unsafe. Not available: (C) a mistaken but reasonable belief as to the facts; (E) ignorance of the nature, substance or quality of unsafe or misbranded food, or that a purchaser for analysis was not prejudiced. The burden of proof is on the person raising the defence.
Section 80 at a glance
| Part | Defence | Available? | Key condition |
|---|---|---|---|
| A | Publishing advertisements | Yes | Business of publishing; published in ordinary course |
| A(2) | Exceptions to A | Not if | Should reasonably have known; earlier written notice from authority; or is the FBO for whom the advertisement was published |
| B | Due diligence | Yes | All reasonable precautions and due diligence, by the person or others under his control |
| C | Mistaken but reasonable belief | No | No defence in any proceedings under the Act |
| D | Handling food (s.56 only) | Yes | Food destroyed or disposed of immediately after unsafe handling |
| E | Ignorance of nature, substance or quality; purchaser not prejudiced | No | Not a defence in prosecution for sale of unsafe or misbranded food |
(A) Publishers of advertisements
In any proceeding for an offence "in relation to the publication of an advertisement", it is a defence for a person to prove that the person "carried on the business of publishing or arranging for the publication of advertisements" and published the advertisement in question "in the ordinary course of that business".
The defence does not apply if the person:
- should reasonably have known that the publication was an offence;
- had previously been informed in writing by the relevant authority that publication of such an advertisement would constitute an offence; or
- is the food business operator, or is otherwise engaged in the conduct of a food business for which the advertisements were published.
An advertising agency or media house can therefore rely on this part. The brand itself cannot. The offence it relates to is misleading advertisement under section 53 (see our note on the penalty for misbranded food and section 24 on advertisement). If you are facing a prosecution and need to decide which defences fit, a penalty and adjudication review can help.
(B) Due diligence
The general defence
"In any proceedings for an offence, it is a defence if it is proved that the person took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of the offence by such person or by another person under the person's control."
The safe-harbour route in clause (2)
Without limiting clause (1), a person satisfies it if it is proved:
- (a) that the offence was due to an act or default of another person, or reliance on information supplied by another person; and
- (b) that the person carried out all checks of the food that were reasonable in the circumstances, or it was reasonable to rely on checks by the supplier; and
- (c) that the person did not import the food into the jurisdiction from another country; and
- (d) in a sale offence, that the person sold the food in the same condition as purchased, or in a different condition where the difference did not result in any contravention; and
- (e) that the person did not know and had no reason to suspect at the time that the act or omission would constitute an offence under the relevant section.
All five parts are joined by "and". An importer cannot use this route because of (c).
Who is "another person"
Clause (3) says another person does not include an employee or agent of the defendant, or, for a company, a director, employee or agent of that company. You cannot blame your own staff and claim this defence.
Food safety programme or scheme
The text then provides that a person may satisfy clause (1) and (2)(b)(i) by proving that:
- where a food safety programme is required by the regulations, the person complied with one that meets the requirements; or
- in any other case, the person complied with a scheme, such as a quality assurance programme or an industry code of practice, that was designed to manage food safety hazards and based on national or international standards, codes or guidelines, and was documented in some manner.
A note on the text: the sub-clauses in (B) are numbered (1), (2), (3) and then (5); there is no (4) in the printed text. This article follows the text as it stands.
Example. A retailer sells packaged food bought from a licensed distributor under a written guarantee, stores it as directed and sells it unopened. An analysis report later shows a problem in the batch. The retailer can show reliance on the supplier's checks, sale in the same condition and no reason to suspect, and so has a due diligence case. A retailer with no invoices, no guarantee and no records would struggle. See also responsibilities of a food manufacturer.
(C) Mistaken but reasonable belief: not a defence
"In any proceedings for an offence under the provisions of this Act, it is no defence that the defendant had a mistaken but reasonable belief as to the facts that constituted the offence." Believing the food was safe, or that the label was correct, does not by itself excuse an offence.
(D) Handling food: section 56
"In proceedings for an offence under section 56, it is a defence if it is proved that the person caused the food to which the offence relates to be destroyed or otherwise disposed of immediately after the food was handled in the manner that was likely to render it unsafe." Section 56 covers unhygienic processing or manufacture (see sections 56 and 57). Prompt disposal shows the food never reached a consumer.
(E) Ignorance and absence of prejudice: not a defence
"It shall be no defence in a prosecution for an offence pertaining to the sale of any unsafe or misbranded article of food to allege merely that the food business operator was ignorant of the nature, substance or quality of the food sold by him or that the purchaser having purchased any article for analysis was not prejudiced by the sale." The word "merely" matters: ignorance alone fails, but due diligence under (B) can still be raised.
Using section 80 in practice
- Keep supplier guarantees, invoices and batch records.
- Document your checks, training and storage controls.
- Keep your food safety programme or quality scheme written and current.
- Raise the defence early and support it with documents, because the burden is on you.
The section also connects with section 66, where a person in charge of a company can prove lack of knowledge or due diligence (see offences by companies).
Need help building your defence file?
A defence under section 80 depends on records made before the problem arises and on how they are presented. TaxClue can help you review your documents and prepare for a hearing through penalty and adjudication support.
Key takeaways
- Advertisement publishers have a defence if they published in the ordinary course of business, but not the food business operator for whom the advertisement was published.
- Due diligence requires all reasonable precautions; blaming your own employees or agents does not qualify.
- Mistaken but reasonable belief is no defence.
- Ignorance of the nature, substance or quality of unsafe or misbranded food is no defence on its own.
- For section 56, immediate destruction or disposal after unsafe handling is a defence.
Read next
- Sections 78 and 79: impleading manufacturer and enhanced punishment
- Sections 87 and 88: public servants and action in good faith
- Selling misbranded food: penalty under section 52
- Responsibilities of a food manufacturer
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; s.80 is unchanged). Verify current notifications, regulations and FSSAI orders before acting.