Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from two criminal applications under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 filed by Bharat Puri and others, including Cadbury India Limited as applicant No.7, challenging the issuance of process by the Judicial Magistrate, Akurdi in a complaint under the Prevention of Food and Adulteration Act, 1954. The complaint originated when on 10 August 2003, a customer found a live insect in a Cadbury milk chocolate purchased from Indrayani Bazar, a retail store. The Food Inspector, acting on a police complaint, collected samples from the shop, which were sent to the State Health Laboratory. The public analyst reported the presence of a live grub and declared the chocolate unfit for human consumption and not conforming to standards for milk chocolate. Following sanction by the Joint Commissioner, Food and Medical Administration, a complaint was filed on 18 December 2003 against Indrayani Bazar, its Chairman, the company, and its directors, including the Managing Director and Executive Directors. The applicants contended that the prosecution was misconceived because the company had nominated Mr. Cedric Vaz under Rule 12-B of the Prevention of Food and Adulteration Rules, 1955 as the person responsible for the affairs of the company, and there were no specific allegations of any overt act or involvement in the day-to-day business by the directors. They argued that vicarious liability under Section 17 of the Act could not be imposed without clear averments attributing responsibility. The respondent Municipal Corporation opposed the applications, asserting that the nomination was factory-specific and limited to the Induri plant where the chocolate was manufactured, and therefore the other directors remained liable. The court heard submissions, during which the applicants relied on precedents such as Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. Food Inspector, Kapil Wadhawan v. State of Maharashtra, and Keki Bomi Dadiseth v. State of Maharashtra, emphasizing that in the absence of specific allegations, the prosecution of directors could not be sustained. The respondent cited Azim Premji v. State of Maharashtra to argue that strict compliance with nomination provisions was necessary. The court, before analyzing rival contentions, began examining the contents of the complaint and the relevant statutory provisions. The judgment was pronounced on 3 August 2017 after being reserved on 6 July 2017, but the provided text does not contain the final operative order or decision.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of Process under Section 482 CrPC - Vicarious Liability of Directors - Prevention of Food and Adulteration Act, 1954, Sections 17, 16; Rule 12-B of Prevention of Food and Adulteration Rules, 1955 - The applicants, Managing Director and Executive Directors of Cadbury India Ltd., sought quashing of process issued in a complaint under the PFA Act on the ground that the company had nominated Mr. Cedric Vaz under Rule 12-B as the person responsible and there were no specific allegations against them - The respondent corporation argued that the nomination was factory-specific, limited to the Induri plant, and thus the other directors could be prosecuted - Held that the court proceeded to examine the contents of the complaint and the legal provisions (Paras 5-8, 13-16).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the prosecution of Managing Director and Executive Directors of a company under the Prevention of Food and Adulteration Act, 1954 is maintainable when the company has nominated a person under Rule 12-B of the Prevention of Food and Adulteration Rules, 1955 and there are no specific allegations of their role in the day-to-day business
Law Points
- Vicarious liability under Section 17 of Prevention of Food and Adulteration Act
- 1954
- Nomination under Rule 12-B of Prevention of Food and Adulteration Rules
- 1955
- Requirement of specific allegations against directors for prosecution
- Scope of inherent powers under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure
- 1973 for quashing process
Case Details
2017 LawText (BOM) (08) 93
Criminal Application No. 5503 of 2004 and Criminal Application No. 5505 of 2004
Mr. Kirti Parekh, Ms. P. N. Dabholkar, Mr. G. H. Keluskar
The State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal applications under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of process issued by the Judicial Magistrate in a complaint under the Prevention of Food and Adulteration Act, 1954.
Remedy Sought
Applicants seek to quash the process issued against them in Criminal Complaint filed by Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation.
Filing Reason
Applicants contend that they are incorrectly prosecuted as the company had nominated Mr. Cedric Vaz as the responsible person under Rule 12-B of the Prevention of Food and Adulteration Rules, 1955, and there are no specific allegations against the Managing Director and Executive Directors regarding their role in the day-to-day business.
Previous Decisions
The Judicial Magistrate, Akurdi issued process against the applicants. On 24 June 2004, the High Court of Bombay granted stay of further proceedings in the trial court upon issuance of Rule.
Issues
Whether the prosecution of Managing Director and Executive Directors of a company under the Prevention of Food and Adulteration Act, 1954 is maintainable when a person has been nominated under Rule 12-B of the Prevention of Food and Adulteration Rules, 1955 and there are no specific allegations regarding their individual roles in the day-to-day conduct of the business.
Submissions/Arguments
Applicants argued that there was no prima facie case against them as no specific overt act was alleged; vicarious liability under Section 17 could not be invoked when the company had already nominated a responsible person under Rule 12-B; the prosecution was lodged to harass the directors.
Respondent argued that the nomination was factory-specific and applied only to the Induri plant; the complaint was maintainable against all directors because the offending product originated from that plant but was sold elsewhere; strict compliance with nomination provisions required examination by the health authority.
Judgment Excerpts
These two criminal applications under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be conveniently disposed of by this common order.
The Public analyst reported presence of live grub and concluded that chocolate does not conform to standards of milk chocolate as per the Act.
there is no allegation of any overt act alleged against the applicants except the mention of their names in the cause title.
According to Mr. Keluskar the nomination is factory/plant specific.
Procedural History
On or about 10 August 2003, a customer purchased a Cadbury milk chocolate from Indrayani Bazar and found a live insect inside. He filed a complaint under the Prevention of Food and Adulteration Act, 1954 at Yamuna Nagar police station. The Food Inspector visited the shop, collected samples, and forwarded them to the State Health Laboratory. The public analyst reported the presence of a live grub and declared the chocolate unfit for human consumption. On 16 December 2003, the Joint Commissioner, Food and Medical Administration, State of Maharashtra granted sanction to file a complaint. Around 18 December 2003, a complaint was filed before the Judicial Magistrate, Akurdi against Indrayani Bazar, its Chairman, Cadbury India Limited, its Managing Director, Executive Directors, and the nominated person, Mr. Cedric Vaz. The Magistrate issued process. The applicants filed criminal applications under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of the process. On 24 June 2004, the High Court granted a stay of further proceedings. The applications were heard together and reserved for judgment on 6 July 2017. The judgment was pronounced on 3 August 2017.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 482
- Prevention of Food and Adulteration Act, 1954: 2(ia)(a), 2(ia)(f), 7(1), 16, 17
- Prevention of Food and Adulteration Rules, 1955: 12-B
