Calcutta High Court quashes case against ex-MD of Mead Johnson over allegation of insect in baby food

The Calcutta High Court has quashed a criminal case against the former Managing Director of Mead Johnson India over allegations of an insect being found in a baby food product [Sailesh Venkatesan v. The State of West Bengal and anr.].

The Court held that corporate directors cannot be held vicariously liable under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) if the company itself has not been arrayed as an accused.

A single-judge bench of Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das observed that the concept of automatic vicarious liability does not exist under the IPC.

"When the company is the offender, vicarious liability of the Directors cannot be imputed automatically in the absence of any statutory provision to this effect. An individual who has perpetrated the commission of an offence on behalf of a company can be made accused along with the company if there is sufficient evidence of his active role coupled with the criminal intent," the Court held.

The matter arose from a private complaint filed in November 2015 by a woman who claimed that she found black dust particles (mould) and a live insect inside a container of baby formula (Enfamil A+ Stage 3 follow-up infant formula).

While the FIR was initially registered against the manufacturing company, Mead Johnson, and the retail pharmacy (MedPlus), the police investigation dragged on for six years.

When the police finally submitted their charge sheet in September 2021, they dropped the company from the accused list and arrayed the Managing Director personally as Accused No. 3.

The director's eventually moved the High Court with an application seeking the quashing of the FIR and a subsequent 2021 charge sheet pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore.

The High Court allowed the plea after highlighting several fatal procedural flaws in the prosecution's case.

Relying on the Supreme Court's landmark ruling in Ramnath v. State of UP, the Court reiterated that the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSS Act) is a special legislation that completely overrides general Indian Penal Code (IPC) sections such as Sections 272 and 273 concerning food quality and adulteration.

Justice Chatterjee noted that under Section 42 of the FSS Act, the power to initiate prosecution rests exclusively with statutory authorities like Food Safety Officers, meaning standard police authorities entirely lacked the jurisdiction to register the FIR or submit the charge sheet in the first place.

Furthermore, the Court observed that the proceedings were completely barred by time under Section 77 of the FSS Act, which explicitly prohibits courts from taking cognisance of an offense after the expiry of one year from its commission.

In this case, the Court found that since the charge sheet was filed six years after the alleged incident, the prosecution was clearly hit by limitation.

The Bench also agreed that this inordinate delay by the police caused the product's "best before" period to expire, effectively destroying the manufacturer's valuable statutory right to defend the product's quality by demanding a laboratory re-test.

The Court concluded that the magistrate had taken cognisance of the charge sheet mechanically and without the application of mind.

Holding that continuing the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law, the High Court quashed the FIR, the charge sheet, and the summons issued against the director.

Senior Advocate Sudipta Sarkar and Advoctes R Jawhar Lal, S Prasad, Daipayan Dan, and Meghna Kumar, appeared for the petitioner (director).

Public Prosecutor Debasish Roy and Advocate Saryati Dutta, K Roy, appeared for the State.

[Read Judgment]