The Calcutta High Court has brought an end to criminal proceedings initiated against the former Managing Director of Mead Johnson India in connection with allegations that a container of baby formula contained a live insect and black mould-like particles.
Setting aside the FIR, charge sheet and all consequential proceedings, the Court ruled that a company’s director cannot be prosecuted solely on the basis of his position when the company itself is not facing trial. It further found that the prosecution had been launched well beyond the limitation period prescribed under law.
Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das observed that the Indian Penal Code does not recognise automatic vicarious liability for directors of companies.
The Court held that where a company is alleged to have committed an offence, its directors cannot be made criminally liable merely because of the offices they hold. Such liability can arise only where there is material indicating an individual’s active involvement in the alleged offence along with the necessary criminal intent, and ordinarily the company itself must also be before the court.
The dispute stemmed from a private complaint filed in November 2015 after a consumer claimed that a container of Enfamil A+ Stage 3 follow-up formula contained black particles and a live insect.
Police initially registered the case against Mead Johnson and the retail outlet from which the product had been purchased. However, after an investigation that stretched for nearly six years, the charge sheet filed in September 2021 omitted the company from the list of accused and instead named the company’s Managing Director personally.
The former executive approached the High Court seeking quashing of both the FIR and the charge sheet pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Alipore.
Allowing the petition, the High Court identified multiple legal defects in the prosecution.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Ramnath v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Court said that the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 is a special statute governing food-related offences and prevails over the general provisions of the Indian Penal Code dealing with adulteration and food quality.
The Court pointed out that under Section 42 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, the authority to initiate prosecution rests with designated Food Safety Officers and other competent statutory authorities. As a result, the police lacked the jurisdiction to independently register the FIR and pursue prosecution in the manner adopted in the present case.
Another decisive factor was limitation. The Court noted that Section 77 of the Food Safety and Standards Act bars courts from taking cognisance of offences after one year from the date of occurrence, unless the statute provides otherwise. Since the charge sheet was filed around six years after the alleged incident, the prosecution was found to be hopelessly time-barred.
The Bench also observed that the prolonged delay had another serious consequence. By the time the investigation concluded, the product’s “best before” period had expired, depriving the manufacturer of the statutory opportunity to seek a fresh laboratory examination to challenge the allegations regarding the product’s quality.
Finding that the magistrate had taken cognisance of the case without properly examining these legal hurdles, the High Court concluded that permitting the prosecution to continue would amount to an abuse of the judicial process.
Accordingly, it quashed the FIR, the charge sheet and the summons issued against the former Managing Director.
