Calcutta High Court Quashes Case Against Former Mead Johnson MD Over Alleged Insect Found In Baby Food

The Calcutta High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against the former Managing Director of Mead Johnson India in a case arising out of allegations that a sealed container of Enfamil A+ Stage 3 baby food purchased from a Kolkata medical store contained a live insect and that the product was sub-standard and unsafe.

Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) held that the prosecution against the petitioner was legally unsustainable as the company itself had not been arraigned as an accused and there were no specific allegations attributing any role to the former Managing Director in the alleged offences.

"The petitioner cannot be made an accused merely because he was the Managing Director of MJN India at the relevant time without including the company as an accused," the Court observed.

The case stemmed from an FIR registered at Charu Market Police Station in November 2015 on a complaint by a consumer who alleged that she had been feeding her child Enfamil A+ Stage 3 formula. She claimed that she had earlier noticed black dust-like particles in the product and that, after purchasing another container on November 8, 2015, she found a live insect upon opening the sealed pack. She further alleged that her child had suffered dehydration due to the allegedly inferior quality of the baby food.

Following investigation, a charge sheet was filed in September 2021 under Sections 269, 270, 272, 273 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 51 and 59(ii) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. While the distributor and the retailer were named as accused, the investigating agency dropped the company from the charge sheet and instead arraigned its former Managing Director.

The petitioner challenged the proceedings, contending that the allegations pertained to offences under the Food Safety and Standards Act, which provides a complete statutory framework for prosecution of food safety violations. It was further argued that there was no concept of vicarious liability under the IPC and that no material connected the petitioner with the alleged offence.

Accepting the submissions, the High Court held that the charge sheet contained no specific allegation or material demonstrating the petitioner's involvement in the commission of the alleged offences.

Referring to the Supreme Court's decisions on criminal liability of company directors, the Court reiterated that directors cannot be prosecuted solely by virtue of their designation unless there are specific allegations establishing their active role and criminal intent. It further noted that the company itself had not been made an accused despite the allegations relating to its product.

The Court also took note of the substantial delay in the investigation. It observed that nearly four years after registration of the FIR, the investigating officer issued a notice to the company, and the charge sheet was filed only in 2021 after the company had questioned the investigating authority's jurisdiction under the Food Safety and Standards Act.

The Court further observed that the allegations essentially related to food safety violations and noted the Supreme Court's view that the Food Safety and Standards Act has an overriding effect over other food-related laws in matters covered by the statute.

Holding that continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner would amount to an abuse of the process of law, the Court quashed the proceedings pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, insofar as they concerned the petitioner.

Case Title: Sailesh Venkatesan v. State of West Bengal & Anr.

Case No.: CRR 558 of 2022

Click here to read order