The Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation’s food safety probe into 40,500kg of suspected mawa worth Rs 60.8 lakh has resulted in a misbranding case after the seized stock was incorrectly labelled as “analogue barfi” and tested against barfi standards, according to a Times of India report citing AMC records.
The AMC health and food safety department seized the stock from a cold-storage facility in Gomtipur on October 28, ahead of Diwali. The seizure involved around 1.02 lakh kg of stock belonging to approximately 60 vendors. The material identified as suspected mawa was among the stock held at the facility.
The largest quantity was linked to Radhika Food Products, which had stored 1,380 sacks weighing 30kg each. The total quantity attributed to the company was 40,500kg, stored under the names Rajwadi Sweet (Bajrangi) and Indian Dessert (Nilkanth).
After the seizure, AMC officials collected samples and labelled them “analogue barfi”. The samples were then analysed at the civic laboratory. The laboratory found that they conformed to the standards for barfi, rather than being assessed as mawa, according to the report.
That classification affected the action available to the civic body. Since the samples were tested as barfi, the case was treated as one of misbranding rather than a violation involving substandard food. The report states that misbranding carries a lighter penalty than a substandard-food violation. In the latter case, the AMC can impose a higher fine and destroy the seized stock.
The packets also lacked mandatory labelling details, including batch numbers and expiry dates. On that basis, the AMC filed a misbranding case against the company, while the testing error weakened the possibility of pursuing a substandard-food case over the suspected mawa.
The episode places the focus on the administrative chain between seizure, sample identification, laboratory testing and enforcement. In this case, the description placed on the samples determined which product standard the laboratory applied and, consequently, the nature of the case that the civic body could register.
The report does not state the final outcome of the misbranding case or whether the seized stock was destroyed. The available information identifies the seizure, the laboratory classification and the case registered by the AMC; further action will depend on the proceedings against the company.
