It Is Manufacturer’s duty That Unsafe Food Product Should Not Be Put To Sale To Consumers: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Title: HINDUSTAN COCA COLA BEVERAGES PVT. LTD. RAJKUMAR TINKER v. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Decided on: 20th october 2023
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 36435 of 2019
Coram: HOB’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
Introduction
High Court of Madhya Pradesh dismissed a miscellaneous criminal petition filed by Petitioners have under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashment of order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Tonk Khurd, District Dewas (M.P.)
Facts of the Case
Food Safety Officer, Food & Drugs Administration, District Dewas (M.P.) took sample of “Mazza Mango Drink” from Shree Vaishnavi Restaurant, Dewas (M.P.) on suspicion of its adulteration for analysis. The Officer issued Form No.V-A to A 1 – Proprietor of Shree Vaishnavi Restaurant. A sample was sent to Food Analyst, State Food Testing Laboratory, Bhopal for analysis on 25.03.2013 and after due examination, the Food Analyst’s Report opined that, the said sample is unsafe for consumption due to fungus growth formation on neck and mouth of bottle and on product’s surface. The Deputy Director & Designated Officer, Food & Drugs Administration recorded its prima facie satisfaction and found its violation of Sections 51, 52, 58 and 59 of Food Safety & Standard Act, 2006 and in exercise of powers conferred under Section 36 (3) (e) of the Act granted approval for filing a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Tonk Khurd, District Dewas, by authorizing the Food Safety Officer. It was a joint complaint in respect of various products i.e. Tea, Sub-standard Mirinda-Orange Flavored Sweetened Carbonated Beverages and Mazza Mango Drink against all the accused persons. After authorization, the Food Safety Officer has filed a joint complaint against eight accused persons. By order on 20.08.2014 Judicial Magistrate First Class, District Dewas (M.P.) directed for issuance of summons against absconding accused persons in the case. After summons was served, petitioner No.2 filed an application under Section 70 (2) of the Code before the Magistrate for recalling of non-bailable warrants issued against them and through order on 19.08.2019 the application was allowed by JMFC of District Dewas (M.P.). Also the arrest warrants issued against the petitioners were recalled. Hence, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code before Court seeking quashment of order dated 20.08.2014.
Case Analysis and Decision
after expiry of safe period for use, the food product was not removed from shelf of the Restaurant, therefore, no injury was caused. The petitioners have not filed any documents to show the date when it was sold and dispatched from the manufacturing unit and reached to the retailer. Whether it was sold to A1 prior to expiry date or after, is a matter of evidence. From the shop, sampling of Mazza was taken, the date of its manufacturing was printed as 02.02.2012 with note that it is best before six months from the date of manufacture for use. There is no document with regard to the fact that produce was dispatched before 02.08.2012 from the manufacturing unit to the Distributor and thereafter to A1. It cannot be said that only A1 was responsible for sale of Mazza Mango Drink and the fungal developed in the product while keeping in the shop of A1 or it was there when it was dispatched from the manufacturing unit. No finding in petition under Section 482 of the Code can be given & Section 27 of the Act defines the liability of manufacturers, packers, wholesalers, distributors and sellers. The manufacturer or packer of an article of food shall be liable for such article of food if it does not meet the requirements of this Act. The petitioners sold product to wholesalers, who further sold to the distributor and then sellers further sale it to the consumer. It is also the manufacturer’s duty that unsafe food product should not be put to sale to consumers. Therefore, it is the duty of the manufacturer to see that none of its product is there in the store of wholesaler, distributor or seller and before its expiry date, it should be removed or recalled. Therefore, the manufacturer cannot shirk from its liability that it was seller who was selling unsafe product. In this case, after grant of approval the complaint was filed before the report from the Food Analyst was received confirming that the product was unsafe, therefore, in absence of any report, prosecution cannot be launched treating the food product ‘unsafe’ or ‘substandard’. Where offence is punishable with imprisonment, the Designated Officer is required to make recommendation to the Commissioner for sanction to launch the prosecution, but in this case the complaint has been filed under various sections alleging violation of the Act. Under the act some of them are punishable with fine only and some of them are punishable with imprisonment. Power having been delegated to the Designated Officer by Commissioner, the trial Court can examine the issue during the trial because the issue of validity of sanction is liable to be examined by the trial Court itself during trial by framing a specific issue. Therefore, the Miscellaneous Criminal Case was dismissed.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- K R Bhuvanashri