The Bombay High Court has refused to quash a Complaint against M/s. Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. in a case involving adulterated beverage.

The Aurangabad Bench was deciding a Criminal Application filed by Coca-Cola Company against the Order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) by which it issued process under Section 204 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) for contravention of provisions of Sections 7(i) read with 2(ia), (a), (h), and 16 read with 17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (PFA Act).

A Single Bench of Justice Y.G. Khobragade observed, “Since, it is not the case of the present applicant about availment of right under Section 13(2) of the PFA, Act and merely the prosecution complaint has been filed after expiry of Best Before Date, it does not prove that the samples were not tested prior to the expiry of Best Before Date of the production. Therefore, the grounds set out by the present applicant/accused No. 4 company that the prosecution complaint has been filed after the period of 16 months from the expiry of Best Before date cannot be said to be bonafide and substantial.”

Advocate D.S. Bagul appeared on behalf of the Applicant while APP V.M. Chate appeared on behalf of the Respondent.

Facts of the Case -

The Applicant company i.e., Coca-Cola – a company of "Sweetened Carbonated Beverages, Canada Dry" prayed for quashment of Complaint instituted by the Complainant/Respondent. The Respondent was the Food Inspector who instituted a Complaint alleging that in 2001, he along with independent panch witnesses had visited the premises M/s. Brooton Marketing where accused was present and was looking after the affairs of said establishment. The Complainant introduced himself as Food Inspector by disclosing his identity and further introduced the Panchas to the accused. He disclosed his intention to draw the sample for the purpose of testing and analysis. Thereafter, he inspected the said establishment. While inspecting the same, he saw food articles "Sweetened Carbonated Beverages, Canada Dry" were stocked and kept for sale with said establishment. Further, on minute inspection of establishment of accused, he saw some suspended fibrous matter by naked eye in packed sealed glass bottles.

None of the sealed bottles were having leakage. Thereafter, the Respondent demanded and purchased 6 x 300 M.L. company packed sealed glass bottles of "Sweetened Carbonated Beverages, Canada Dry" for the purpose of testing and analysis. Pursuantly, the Respondent received report of "Sweetened Carbonated Beverages, Canada Dry" from Local (Health) Authority and Assistant Commissioner, Food and Drug (M.S.) Jalna under a letter declaring that the sample of "Sweetened Carbonated Beverages, Canada Dry" contains extraneous Fibrous and particulate suspended matter. On physical observations, somewhat cobweb like particulate matter was observed. Therefore, said food product was not in confirmation with the requirements of Carbonated water as per Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and Rules, which was in contravention of Section 2(V) of PFA, Act. Resultantly, the Complaint was registered against the company.

The High Court in the above context of the case, noted, “… the sample of "Sweetened Carbonated Beverages, Canada Dry" manufactured on 13.06.2001 having Best Before 6 months i.e. 12.12.2001 was collected by the Complainant/Food Inspector on 26.07.2001 and it was sent to the Public Analyst on 27.07.2007. The report was received on 28.08.2007 and the prosecution was launched on 15.03.2003. However, in the meantime the complainant filed Misc. Application No. 394 of 2001. on 03.09.2001 and on 27.02.2002, after service of notice to accused No. 1, the said seized stock of 321 company packed sealed Glass bottles of "Sweetened Carbonated Beverages, Canada Dry" manufactured on 13.06.2001 has been destroyed under the order of the Ld. CJM. Thereafter empty glass bottles are returned to the accused No. 1.”

The Court added that the accused was having an opportunity to apply for re-examination of the said article under Section 13(2) of the PFA, Act, however, neither the manufacturer nor accused who were distributors/stockists of the said product availed such remedy.

The Court said that the Applicant manufacturing company has no voice to say that, no opportunity was granted under section 13 (2) of the PFA Act.

“It is pertinent to note that, denial of right of the accused under section 13(2) of the PFA, Act would arose only when the accused could have applied for sending the samples for 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 PFA, Act”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the High Court rejected the Criminal Application.

Cause Title- M/s. Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. The State of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2024:BHC-AUG:2915)

Click here to read/download the Judgment