9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1833X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that a criminal liability of transferor company into the tranferee company cannot be transferred or fastened on transferee company upon its amalgamation, because with the amalgamation, the transferor company suffers a civil death and it is ceased to exist. In the present case, the offence is occurred on 21.12.1996 and the Brooke Bond Lipton India Ltd merged with the Hindustan Lever Ltd on 20.3.1997. Thus, the Brooke Bond Lipton India Co. Ltd. committed the alleged offence before its merger with the petitioner Hindustan Lever India Co. Ltd. Consequently, the petitioner cannot be prosecuted. The petitioner cannot be prosecuted for the charges as mentioned in the complaint. Therefore, I allow this petition and quash the complaint and the subsequent proceedings in Criminal Case No.2473 of 2007 in respect of the petitioner only in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Petition allowed. - Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.11644/2016. - - - Dated:- 23-11-2017 - Rajendra Mahajan J. For petitioner :- Shri Surendra Singh with Shri Saurabh Agrawal. For respondent/State :- S.S.Kushwaha, Shri Rajesh Pathak, learned Public Prosecutor. ORDER ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry into the matter. In the course of which, he came to know that the Paam Eatables Ltd has been producing the noodles in the brand name of the Top Ramen instant noodles for the Indo Nissin Foods Ltd under an agreement dated 8.7.1996. The former stock transfers the noodles so produced to the latter which has appointed the Brooke Bond Lipton India Ltd, the sole selling agent of the noodles in the territory of India. M/s K.S Enterprises Bhopal is one of the distributors and stockists of the Brooke Bond Lipton India Ltd, which had sold the noodles to the firm in the wholesale. 2.3 S.S.Kushwah got particulars from the aforestated companies regarding the licenses and the nominations under the provisions of Sections 7(3) and 17 (2) of the PFA Act. Thereafter, he sought the prosecution sanction in terms of Section 20 of the PFA Act from the Local Health Authority, Gwalior, which has granted prosecution sanction vide order dated 20.3.1998. 2.4 On 8.7.1998, S.S.Kushwaha filed a complaint mentioning therein the aforestated facts against 18 persons including the petitioner for being prosecuted under Sections 7 (2) (3) of the PFA Act with Rule 50 of the Rules and Sections ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n seasoning for Noodles and Pastas and its letter dated 2.8.2016 regarding the pending cases under the PFA Act. Upon these submissions, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner prayed to quash the complaint and subsequent proceedings of the case in respect of the petitioner. 4. In reply, learned Public Prosecutor admitted that the Public Analyst described the sample misbranded on the ground that the contents of its tested positive for MSG. Thus, the declaration of MSG on the packages of the noodles by the manufacture is mandatory as per the Rule 42(S) of the Rules. But there was no such declaration on the sample package. He submitted that the Brooke Bond Lipton India Ltd is amalgamated with the petitioner Hindustan Lever Ltd. Therefore, the prosecution of the petitioner is proper for the offences committed by the Brooke Bond Lipton India Ltd under the PFA Act. Upon these submissions, he prayed for the dismissal of the petition moved by the petitioner. 5. I have considered earnestly the rival submissions made at the Bar and perused the entire material on record. 6. In the present case, the following two questions fall for consideration before me : ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (underlined by me). 3. To prevent, both, avoidable harassment/prosecution of Food Business Operators (FBOs) as well as to ensure that consumers are facilitated to exercise informed choices in respect of what they eat, proceedings may be launched against FBOs only when the labels state No MSG or No added MSG and MSG is actually found in the impugned foodstuff. Commissioners of Food Safety are advised that specific enforcement/prosecution may not be launched against the manufacturers of Noodles/Pasta on account of presence of MSG/Glutamic Acid unless, it is ascertained by the department that Monosodium Glutamate flavour enhancer (INS E-621) was deliberately added during the course of manufacture without required declaration on the label as indicated in Para 1 above . (underlined by me). As already stated that the Public Analyst has not clarified in its report whether the MSG in the sample is added from outside or it is naturally present in the product. Therefore, if the sample tested positive for MSG, it cannot be made a ground for prosecution of the petitioner for violation of Rule 42(S) of the rules in view of underlined portions of the said o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
