The Bombay High Court's Aurangabad bench on Wednesday refused to quash criminal proceedings initiated against Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages over allegations that they sold adulterated units of their soft drink 'Canada Dry' in 2001 (Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt Ltd v The State of Maharashtra).
The case is presently pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalna. Hindustan Coca-Cola had sought to dismiss the case, arguing that delays in prosecution deprived the company of its legal right to challenge the evidence.
A single Bench of Justice YG Khobragade, however, noted that such a right can only be claimed if the accused had applied for sending the samples for a second 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 [Prevention of Food Adulteration] Act," the Court observed.
In this case, the Court found that the accused, including Hindustan Coca Cola, had sufficient opportunity to exercise its right for reexamination before the destruction of the adulterated stock but failed to exercise it.
A stock of 321 bottles of 'Canada dry' with an expiry date of December 12, 2001 was seized on July 27, 2001 and was destroyed only in June 2002.
"Therefore, the accused No. 1 was having opportunity to apply for re-examination of the said article under Section 13(2) of the PFA, Act. However, neither the applicant who is manufacturer nor Accused Nos. 1 to 3 who are distributors/stockists of the said product have availed such remedy. Therefore, to my view, the applicant manufacturing company has no voice to say that, no opportunity was granted under section 13 ( 2) of the PFA Act," the Court held while rejecting Hindustan Coca Cola's application.
After the pronouncement of the order, Hindustan Coca Cola sought the extension of an interim stay on criminal proceedings for another eight weeks. However, the Court refused to extend any such interim relief, thereby allowing criminal proceedings that have been stalled for around fourteen years to continue.
The case dates back to June 2001, when Hindustan Coca-Cola produced several batches of 'Canada Dry', a sweetened carbonated beverage for sale.
On July 26, 2001, Food Inspector MD Shah visited the premises of Brooton Marketing in Aurangabad, a distributor of the product and discovered several sealed bottles of the product.
During the inspection, he found the presence of extraneous fibrous and particulate matter in the bottles, raising concerns about the quality of the beverage.
To investigate further, the inspector purchased six bottles of 'Canada Dry' for testing. The following day, the samples were sent for analysis, and on August 28, 2001, the Public Analyst confirmed that the samples contained adulterants—specifically, extraneous fibrous and particulate matter.
This finding violated food safety standards. Alarmed by the results, the Food Inspector sought permission on September 3, 2001, to destroy the adulterated samples.
Upon receiving the permission from the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalna on June 27, 2022, the seized bottles were destroyed in the presence of Assistant Superintendent of the Court.
The Joint Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration sanctioned prosecution against the company on March 15, 2003. The formal complaint was filed only on May 13, 2003, long after the product’s 'Best Before' date of December 12, 2001, had expired.
Hindustan Coca-Cola argued that this delay of 16 months in filing the complaint prevented them from exercising its legal right under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, which allows an accused to request a second analysis of the food sample from a Central Laboratory within 10 days of receiving the Public Analyst's report. It, therefore, sought the quashing of the case.
The Assistant Public Prosecutor (APP) strongly opposed the application, arguing that the request to quash the proceedings was not maintainable under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure The APP further argued that the delay in filing the complaint did not invalidate the prosecution and emphasized the importance of adhering to legal processes in food safety cases.
After considering the rival arguments, the Court dismissed Hindustan Coca-Cola's application.
