Read Time: 05 minutes
The bench while dismissing the petition said that neither the accused nor the distributor availed the remedy for a second analysis under the Food and Adulteration Act and therefore, no opportunity was granted to them
The Bombay High Court has recently refused to quash a criminal case against Hindustan Coco Cola against which proceedings were initiated for selling adulterated units.
A single-judge bench of the high court at Aurangabad comprising Justice YG Khobragade was hearing a plea filed by the company challenging the criminal proceedings before the Chief Judicial Magistrate in Jalna.
In 2001 the company manufactured a sweetened carbohydrate beverage called ‘Canada Dry’. During an inspection at a distributor, a food inspector found extraneous fibrous and particulate matter which compromised the quality of the product.
After the samples were sent for testing it was found that the product contained adulterated ingredients including extraneous fibrous and particulate matter. The authorities then took permission from the magistrate and destroyed the samples used for testing.
The joint commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration sanctioned the prosecution only after the ‘Best Before’ date of the product was expired.
The company contended that the delay in filing the complaint has deprived them of their right to seek a second analysis report and the Food and Adulteration Act.
The Public Prosecutor contended that it was not a fit case to exercise power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He added that a delay in filing a complaint does not invalidate it.
The high court noted in its order that the right to a second analysis report arises only if the accused has applied for it.
“It is pertinent to note that, denial of right of the accused under section 13(2) of the PFA, Act would arose only when the accused could have applied for sending the samples for analysis to the Central Laboratory. Failing to exercise such option, or to make an application to Court requesting that sample be sent to the Central Laboratory for reanalysis would disentitle the accused from contending that they have been deprived from exercising their right under section 13(2) of the PFA, Act,” the order states.
The bench while dismissing the petition said that neither the accused nor the distributor availed the remedy for a second analysis under the Food and Adulteration Act and therefore, no opportunity was granted to them.
Case title: Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages vs State of Maharashtra
Please Login or Register
