Allowed

M/S.Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. Food Inspector, Devikulam Circle

Kerala HC4 Oct 2007Crl.MC/4090/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala quashed criminal proceedings against a company accused of food adulteration. The court held that a label declaration alone is insufficient to implicate a manufacturer without corroborating sale documents like invoices.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings against the petitioner company and its nominee in C.C. No. 574/1999 were quashed.

M/S.Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs Food Inspector… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Kerala HC (2007)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 4TH OCTOBER 2007 / 12TH ASWINA 1929

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 4090 of 2002()

¶6

¶7

C.C.NO.574/1999 OF JFCM, ADIMALY

¶8

PETITIONER: ACCUSED NO.4

¶9

¶10

M/S.HINDUSTAN LEVER LIMITED,165/166,BACK

¶11

BASY RECLAMATION,MUMBAI 400 020 (REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL SALES MANAGER,MR.VINOD NAMBIAR)

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.N.A.MURALEEDHARAN

¶13

RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT AND STATE

¶14

¶15

THE FOOD INSPECTOR,DEVIKULAM CIRCLE, (FOOD INSPECTOR,RAJAKKAD GRAMA PANCHAYAT)

¶16

THE STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM.

¶17

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI AMJAD ALI

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/10/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

ORDER ON CRL.M.P.NO.2677/2002 IN CRL.M.C.NO.4090/2002

¶20

CLOSED.

¶21

SD/- K.R.UDAYABHANU, JUDGE

¶22

04/10/2007

¶23

\TRUE COPY//

¶24

K.R.UDAYABHANU, J.

¶25

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Crl.M.C.No.4090 of 2002

¶26

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

¶27

Dated this the 4^th day of October, 2007

¶28

O R D E R

¶29

The petitioner company, which is the fourth accused in C.C.No.574/1999 pending in the court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Adimaly, has sought for getting quashed the proceedings initiated alleging that the company has been implicated only on the basis of the label declaration and that no invoice, cash bill or cash memorandum as contemplated under proviso to Section 14 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, has been produced.

¶30

It is settled law, as held by the Supreme Court in Murlidhar Shyamlal and another v. State of Assam [1996

¶31

SCC (Cri) 485] that label declaration is hardly sufficient to establish the fact that the food articles seized were manufactured by the particular entity. The petitioner has also produced the copy of the complaint which contains the list of the documents produced. It is seen that no documents as to the purchase of the articles by the vendor have been produced. In

¶32

Crl.M.C.No.4090/2002

¶33

-:2:-

¶34

the circumstances, the materials produced along with the complaint is not sufficient to implicate the petitioner herein. At a later stage, if accused Nos.1 and 2, the vendor or the licencee or the prosecuting agency produce the relevant records in the matter to establish that it is the petitioner company, that has produced the food article, that is, skimmed milk powder, the petitioner can be impleaded. Hence, the proceedings initiated against the fourth accused in C.C.No.574/1999 in the court of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Adimaly, is herewith quashed.

¶35

The counsel for the petitioner has sought for the benefit of this order to be extended to the third accused, who is the nominee to the fourth accused company. In the circumstances, the third accused will also be entitled for the same relief as provided herein.

¶36

The criminal miscellaneous case is allowed.

¶37

K.R.UDAYABHANU, Judge

Crl.M.C.No.4090/2002

-:3:-

K.R.UDAYABHANU, J.

¶42

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Crl.M.C.No.4090 of 2002

¶43

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

¶44

O R D E R

¶45

4^th October, 2007

M/S.Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. Food Inspector, Devikulam Circle

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. Food Inspector, Devikulam Circle

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Joy Vs Raju

T.K.Ummer Haji Vs Soupy

Ummer Haji Vs State of Kerala

2/S.CHANDRIKA Traders Vs J.S.Road Carriers

D.Sivakumar Vs the Food Inspector

B.Suneer Vs State of Kerala