Expired Maaza Sale Case| Manufacturer Is Also Seller, Must Ensure Unsafe Food Product Is Not Put To Consumer- Madhya Pradesh HC Dismisses Coca-Cola’s Plea
The Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench has rejected the plea of Hindustan Coca Coca Beverages Pvt. Ltd. in an expired Maaza sale case. It said that the manufacturer cannot shirk from its liability.
The petitioners filed a petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashment of order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class.
A Single Bench of Justice Vivek Rusia held, “The manufacturer is also a seller and it is his duty that unsafe food product should not be put to sale to consumers. All- packer, wholesaler, distributor and seller work on a contract with a manufacturer. 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 should have been recalled. Therefore, the manufacturer cannot shirk from its liability that it was seller who was selling unsafe product.”
The Bench said that at such a stage it cannot be held that the seller would be punished for imprisonment also.
Senior Advocate Satish Chandra Bagadiya appeared for the petitioners while Advocate Kushal Goyal appeared for the respondent.
Brief Facts -
The Food Safety Officer, Food & Drugs Administration, Dewas, (M.P.) took sample of “Mazza Mango Drink” from one restaurant on suspicion of its adulteration and for its analysis. A sample was sent to Food Analyst, State Food Testing Laboratory, Bhopal for analysis and after due examination, the Food Analyst vide its Report opined that the said sample was unsafe for consumption due to fungus growth formation on neck and mouth of bottle and also on product’s surface. The Deputy Director & Designated Officer after recording its prima facie satisfaction, found of 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 vide sanction order for filing a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate First Class.
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. The Judicial Magistrate directed for issuance of summons against absconding accused persons in this case. Thereafter, summons were served to the petitioners and the accused filed an application under Section 70 (2) of the Code before the Magistrate for recalling of non-bailable warrants issued against them; and vide order, the said application was allowed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class and the arrest warrants issued against the petitioners were recalled. Hence, the petitioners filed the petition before the High Court.
The High Court in view of the above facts noted, “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 and the Rules and Regulations made thereunder. The distributors, packers, wholesalers and sellers, sale the goods on behalf of the manufacturer. The petitioners- manufacturer after manufacturing its goods sold its product to wholesalers, who further sold to the distributor and then sellers further sale it to the consumer.”
The Court further found substance in the argument that where offence is punishable with imprisonment, the Designated Officer is required to make recommendation to the Commissioner for sanction to launch prosecution. It said that however, in this case the complaint has been filed under various sections alleging violation of the Act under which some of them are punishable with fine only and some of them are punishable with imprisonment and power has been delegated to the Designated Officer by Commissioner, therefore, trial Court can examine this 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.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the petition.
Cause Title- Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
