Pepsi’s application to quash criminal proceedings in 17-year old food adulteration case runs out of fizz

The Gujarat High Court on Thursday rejected Pepsico Holdings’ application to quash criminal proceedings instituted against it in a food adulteration case that dates back to 1997..The judgment was delivered by Justice JB Pardiwala..AS Licencewala, a food inspector, had lodged a private complaint with the Judicial Magistrate of First Class against Pepsico and others for offences punishable under Sections 7 and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (PFA Act). Prior to this, the complainant had collected samples of the beverages and sent them to the Public Analyst, who on inspection, reported them to be adulterated..The applicants were represented by advocate SV Raju, while the Respondents were represented by advocates Vishwas Shah, Masoom Shah and RR Marshall with Marshall appearing in the initial stages of the matter..The counsel for the applicants had pleaded that the right of the accused conferred under Section 13(2) of the Act to get the sample of the product “Lehar Pepsi” reanalysed through the Central Food Laboratory was frustrated on account of gross delay on the part of the complainant in filing of the complaint..However, the Single Judge Bench, placing reliance on a number of cases held that,.“There is no time limit prescribed within which the prosecution has to be instituted…the Public Analyst must in all cases try to comply with the time limit. But if there is some delay, in a given case, there is no reason to hold that the very report is void and on that basis to hold that even prosecution cannot be launched.”.It was also argued that the ‘Best Before’ date had long passed by the time the sample was reanalysed. In response to this, the Court held that,.“Once there is a certificate of the Central Food Laboratory certifying that the sample was fit for analysis, then the burden would shift on the accused to establish by leading cogent evidence that the sample had become unfit…Whether a sample has, on expiry of its Best Before date or its shelf life, become unfit for analysis on account of its being decomposed, is a matter of evidence and not a matter of inference in the proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.”.Further, the Court affirmed the fact that food adulteration cases would be governed by the principle of strict liability, wherein criminal intent need not be ascertained. The case of Hyderabad Beverages Private Limited v. State of A.P. was quoted thus,.“Since the object and purpose of the PFA Act is to eliminate danger to human life and health from the sale of unwholesome articles of food, strict adherence to the PFA Act and the rules made thereunder is essential. In offences relating to food articles, strict liability is the rule.”.On the above grounds, the Court dismissed the petition and also vacated the interim relief granted earlier..Image taken from here.