2010 (11) TMI 1047 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Quashes Prosecution Due to Lack of Validated Analysis Method

PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD. Versus FOOD INSPECTOR & ANR.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the Kerala High Court's judgment, and quashed the prosecution of the appellants. The court held that the ... Maintainability of the criminal prosecutions - Petitions filed u/s 482 for quashing the order - the Public Analyst submitted his report stating that upon analysis of the sample of Pepsi Sweetened Carbonated Water, using the Directorate General of Health Services (DGHS) method, pesticide residue- Carbofuran, to the extent of 0.001 mg per litre was detected therein. The said sample was, therefore, adulterated within the meaning of Rule 65 of the 1955 Rules and Section 2(ia)(h) of the 1954 Act. Based upon the report of the Public Analyst, the CJM, took cognizance of the offence and issued process against the Appellants. The Appellants moved the HC u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the aforesaid order of the CJM. The learned Single Judge by his order, dismissed the said application and directed the prosecution to continue with the case. Aggrieved by the order, the Appellant-Company, and its Directors have filed these appeals challenging the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate. HELD THAT:- the percentage of Carbofuran detected in the sample of Pepsico which was sent for examination to the Forensic Laboratory is within the tolerance limits prescribed for Sweetened Carbonated Water with effect from 17th June, 2009.It may be noted that the High Court had itself observed that mere presence of insecticide residue to any extent could not justify an allegation that the article of food was adulterated, but contrary to such observation, the High Court went on to hold that the Sweetened Carbonated Water manufactured by the Appellants was adulterated within the meaning of Section 2(ia)(h) of the 1954 Act. It has to be kept in mind that although an argument was advanced with regard to the restrictions imposed on the use of insecticides under Rule 65 of the 1955 Rules, it is apparent from the order of the learned Single Judge that such a ground was given up by the respondents and the arguments were confined only with regard to the alleged violation of Section 2(ia)(h) of the 1954 Act. We, accordingly, allow the appeals and set aside the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge impugned in these proceedings and quash the prosecution of the Appellants in respect of the various complaints challenged before the HC in its inherent jurisdiction. Issues Involved:1. Validity of prosecution without prescribed and validated method of analysis.2. Reliability of the Public Analyst's report in the absence of validated analysis methods.3. Effect of non-specification of tolerance levels for pesticide residue in sweetened carbonated water.4. Liability of company directors under Section 17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of Prosecution Without Prescribed and Validated Method of Analysis:The primary contention was whether a prosecution could be initiated without a prescribed and validated method of analysis under Section 23(1-A)(hh) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The appellants argued that the absence of a standardized method led to non-uniform analysis by the Public Analyst. The court noted that the Public Analyst used the Directorate General of Health Services (DGHS) method to detect Carbofuran in the sample, which was not a validated method under the Act. The court held that the absence of a validated method of analysis rendered the prosecution invalid.2. Reliability of the Public Analyst's Report:The appellants challenged the reliability of the Public Analyst's report, which detected 0.001 mg/litre of Carbofuran in the sweetened carbonated water. The court emphasized that the report did not indicate that the detected pesticide residue was injurious to health. Furthermore, the court observed that the mere presence of pesticide residue could not justify a conclusion that the product was adulterated. The court concluded that the report of the Public Analyst, based on a non-validated method, could not be relied upon for prosecution.3. Effect of Non-Specification of Tolerance Levels:The court examined the effect of non-specification of tolerance levels for pesticide residue in sweetened carbonated water under Rule 65(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. At the time of the incident, no tolerance limits were prescribed for carbonated water. It was only on 17th June 2009 that a tolerance limit of 0.001 mg/litre was introduced. The court held that the presence of pesticide residue within the subsequently prescribed tolerance limit could not be considered adulteration. The court observed that the High Court had misconstrued the appellants' submissions and wrongly concluded that the sweetened carbonated water was adulterated.4. Liability of Company Directors:The court considered the liability of the directors under Section 17 of the 1954 Act. The appellants argued that the complaint did not specify how the directors were responsible for the company's day-to-day management. The court referred to the decision in S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Neeta Bhalla & Anr., which required specific allegations against directors in the complaint. The court noted that the mere designation of individuals as directors was insufficient to establish their liability. Moreover, the court acknowledged that Somesh Dahale, Manager, Quality Control, was nominated as the person responsible for the conduct of the company's business under Section 17(2). The court concluded that the directors could not be held liable in the absence of specific allegations regarding their involvement in the company's management.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the judgment of the Kerala High Court, and quashed the prosecution of the appellants. The court held that the absence of a validated method of analysis and the non-specification of tolerance levels for pesticide residue rendered the prosecution invalid. Furthermore, the court concluded that the directors could not be held liable without specific allegations regarding their role in the company's management.