Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court allowed two appeals arising from a High Court order that set aside the conviction of a nominated officer of Hindustan Unilever Limited and remanded the matter for fresh trial against the company. The case originated from a 1989 complaint under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, where a sample of vanaspati ghee was found adulterated due to a higher melting point. The trial court convicted the nominated officer, Dr. Nirmal Sen, but did not convict the company. The appellate court affirmed his conviction. The High Court, in revision, set aside the conviction and remanded the matter for fresh trial against both the nominated officer and the company, noting that the company had not been convicted. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's order violated Section 401(2) of the CrPC because it was made to the prejudice of the company without affording it an opportunity of hearing. The Court also rejected the argument that the accused was entitled to the benefit of lesser punishment under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, as Section 97 of that Act saves proceedings under the repealed Act for offences committed prior to repeal. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, the High Court's order was set aside, and the conviction of the nominated officer was restored.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Revisional Jurisdiction - Section 401(2) CrPC - Opportunity of Hearing - High Court set aside conviction of nominated officer and remanded matter for fresh trial against company without issuing notice to company - Held that such order is in contravention of Section 401(2) CrPC as no order prejudicial to accused can be made without affording opportunity of hearing (Paras 12-13). B) Food Adulteration - Repeal and Saving - Section 97 of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 - Offences committed prior to repeal - Trial and punishment under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 are saved - Held that the 2006 Act does not apply retrospectively to offences committed before its enactment (Paras 13-14). C) Food Adulteration - Liability of Company - Nomination - Company not convicted by trial court - High Court cannot order retrial against company without notice - Held that the company was not convicted and no order could be passed to its prejudice without hearing (Paras 12-13).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court could set aside the conviction of the nominated officer and remand the matter for fresh trial against the company without affording the company an opportunity of hearing, and whether the benefit of lesser punishment under the 2006 Act is available to the accused.
Final Decision
Appeals allowed. High Court order dated 9.1.2020 set aside. Conviction of appellant Nirmal Sen restored.
Law Points
- Revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 CrPC cannot be exercised to the prejudice of an accused without affording opportunity of hearing
- Repeal and saving clause under Section 97 of Food Safety and Standards Act
- 2006 preserves liability under repealed Prevention of Food Adulteration Act
- 1954 for offences committed prior to repeal
- Company not convicted by trial court cannot be subjected to retrial without notice
