Thursday, 07, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Mead Johnson Mutrition India Pvt. ... vs Unknown
2021 Latest Caselaw 4742 Cal

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 4742 Cal
Judgement Date : 10 September, 2021

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Mead Johnson Mutrition India Pvt. ... vs Unknown on 10 September, 2021
    41
10.09.2021

rrc

CRR 1767 of 2021 In re : An application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

In the matter of : Mead Johnson Mutrition India Pvt. Ltd.

..... petitioner Mr. Sudipta Sarkar Mr. J. Lal Mr. Suddhakar Prasad Mr. Pradipta Bose .....For the petitioner

The prosecution, in this case, was launched on the basis of

an F.I.R. being no. 333 of 2015 dated November 10, 2015,

registered by the Charu Market Police Station under Sections

269/270/272/273/114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Following

the said F.I.R., after a lapse of about four years, on May 29, 2019,

a notice was issued under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973, by the relevant police station against the

authorized person/director of the petitioner company.

The said notice was replied to by the petitioner in a letter

dated June 4, 2019.

Thereafter again a notice was issued on August 30, 2020,

against one of the directors of the petitioner company under

Section 160(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, requesting

him to appear before the investigating officer.

By filing this revisional application, the petitioner prays for

quashing the proceeding.

Mr. Sudipta Sarkar, learned senior advocate appearing for

the petitioner submits that in this case there has been no report in

terms of Section 46(2) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006

and therefore, the prosecution is liable to be quashed.

He relies upon a judgment reported at 2010 SCC Online All

1708 [M/s. Pepsico India Holdings (Pvt) Limited and another

Vs. State of U.P. and others] delivered in the context of

Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, wherein it has been

held as follows:-

"Section 42 empowers the Food Safety Officer for inspection of food business, drawing samples and sending them to Food Analyst for analysis. The Designated Officer, after scrutiny of the report of Food Analyst shall decide as to whether the contravention is punishable with imprisonment or fine only and in the case of contravention punishable with imprisonment, he shall send his recommendations to the Commissioner of Food Safety for sanctioning prosecution. Therefore, invoking Sections 272 and 273 of the Penal Code, 1860 in the matter relating to adulteration of food pursuant to the impugned government order is wholly unjustified and non est."

Mr. Sarkar further relies upon paragraph 8 of the judgment

reported at (2009) 15 SCC 64 (Girishbhai Dahyabhai Shah Vs.

C.C.Jani and another) in support of his contention.

Admittedly, in this case, a notice under Section 91 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, was issued after four years from

the lodging of the relevant F.I.R. and, thereafter, again after a delay

of about two years, further notice under Section 160(1) of the Code

of Criminal Procedure, 1973, was issued against the director of the

petitioner company.

Prima facie, I am of the view that the prosecution against the

petitioner cannot continue under Sections 51 and 59 of the Food

Safety and Standards Act, 2006, when the same was initiated

without any report under Section 46(2) of the Food Safety and

Standards Act, 2006. The Sections under Indian Penal Code, 1860

are not applicable for alleged violation of the provisions of the Food

Safety and Standards Act, 2006.

In view of the aforesaid, there shall be a stay of all further

proceedings in connection with Charu Market Police Station Case

No. 333 under Sections 269/270/272/273 and 114 of the Indian

Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 51 and 59 of the Food Safety and

Standards Act, 2006, for a period of eight weeks from date.

The petitioner shall serve a copy of this application upon the

opposite parties within a period of two weeks, indicating that this

application shall be taken up for hearing after six weeks under the

heading "Contested Application". The petitioner shall file an

affidavit-of-service to that effect on the next date of hearing.

List this application after six weeks under the heading

"Contested Application".

(Kausik Chanda, J.)

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter