law: The Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 
  80. Defences which
  
  may or may not be allowed in prosecution under this Act. - 
  A.    
  
    Defence
  
  relating to publication of advertisements-
  1.      In any proceeding for
  
  an offence under this Act 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 that the
  
  person published or arranged for the publication of the advertisement in
  
  question in the ordinary course of that business.
  2.      Clause (1) does not
  
  apply if the person-
  a.      should reasonably
  
  have known that the publication of the advertisement was an offence; or
  b.     had previously been
  
  informed in writing by the relevant authority that publication of such an
  
  advertisement would constitute an offence; or
  c.      is the food business
  
  operator or is otherwise engaged in the conduct of a food business for which
  
  the advertisements concerned were published.
  A.    
  
  
  B.    
  
  
  
    Defence
  
  of due diligence-
  1.      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.
  2.      Without limiting the
  
  ways in which a person may satisfy the requirements of clause (1), a person
  
  satisfies those requirements if it is proved-
  a.      that the commission
  
  of the offence was due to-
                               
  
   i.     an act or default of
  
  another person; or
                              
  
   ii.     reliance on
  
  information supplied by another person; and
  b.    
                               
  
   i.     the person carried
  
  out all such checks of the food concerned as were reasonable in all the
  
  circumstances; or
                              
  
   ii.     it was reasonable in
  
  all the circumstances to rely on checks carried out by the person who supplied
  
  such food to the person; and
  a.     
  
  
  b.     
  
  
  c.      that the person did
  
  not import the food into the jurisdiction from another country; and
  d.     in the case of an
  
  offence involving the sale of food, that-
                               
  
   i.     the person sold the
  
  food in the same condition as and when the person purchased it; or
                              
  
   ii.     the person sold the
  
  food in a different condition to that in which the person purchased it, but
  
  that the difference did not result in any contravention of this Act or the
  
  rules and regulations made thereunder; and
  a.     
  
  
  b.     
  
  
  c.     
  
  
  
  
  d.     
  
  
  e.      that the person did
  
  not know and had no reason to suspect at the time of commission of the alleged
  
  offence that the person's act or omission would constitute an offence under the
  
  relevant section.
  1.     
  
  
  2.     
  
  
  
  
  3.      In sub-clause (a) of
  
  clause (2), another person does not include a person who was-
  a.      an employee or agent
  
  of the defendant; or(b) in the case of a defendant which is a company, a
  
  director, employee or agent of that company.
  1.     
  
  
  2.     
  
  
  
  
  3.     
  
  
  4.     
  
    Without
  
  limiting the ways in which a person may satisfy the requirements of clause (1)
  
  and item (i) of sub-clause (b) of clause (2), a person may satisfy those
  
  requirements by proving that-
  a.      in the case of an
  
  offence relating to a food business for which a food safety programme is
  
  required to be prepared in accordance with the regulations, the person complied
  
  with a food safety programme for the food business that complies with the
  
  requirements of the regulations, or
  b.     in any other case,
  
  the person complied with a scheme (for example, a quality assurance programme
  
  or an industry code of practice) that was-
                       
  
   i.        
  
    designed
  
  to manage food safety hazards and based on national or international standards,
  
  codes or guidelines designed for that purpose, and
                      
  
   ii.        
  
    documented
  
  in some manner.
  A.    
  
  
  B.    
  
  
  C.    
  
    Defence
  
  of mistaken and reasonable belief not available-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.
  D.    
  
    Defence
  
  in respect of handling food-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.
  E.    
  
    Defences
  
  of significance of the nature, substance or quality of food- 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.