Aastha Pareek
The Bombay High Court’s Aurangabad Bench on declined to quash criminal proceedings against Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., which stands accused of selling adulterated ‘Canada Dry’ soft drink batches in the year 2001.
The case Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt Ltd v. The State of Maharashtra has been pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalna, and revolves around allegations of violations under the Prevention of Food Adulteration (PFA) Act. Hindustan Coca-Cola sought dismissal of the proceedings, contending that delays in prosecution deprived it of the statutory right to challenge the evidence through reanalysis of the seized product.
The dispute traces back to July 2001, when a Food Inspector discovered adulterated bottles of Canada Dry at a distributor’s premises in Aurangabad. Testing revealed the presence of extraneous fibrous and particulate matter in the samples, prompting concerns about public health risks. On August 28, 2001, the Public Analyst confirmed the adulteration. However, while the adulterated stock was destroyed in June 2002, prosecution was initiated only in May 2003, nearly 16 months after the complaint was sanctioned and long after the product’s ‘Best Before’ date of December 12, 2001, had expired.
Hindustan Coca-Cola argued that this delay undermined its legal right under Section 13(2) of the PFA Act, which allows an accused to request a second analysis of food samples within 10 days of receiving the Public Analyst’s report. The company contended that the delay rendered this statutory right meaningless, thereby violating principles of natural justice.
The Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the plea, asserting that the delay in filing the complaint did not invalidate the prosecution and highlighting that Hindustan Coca-Cola had failed to seek re-analysis during the period when the seized stock remained available. Justice YG Khobragade noted that the accused had ample opportunity to request re-examination of the adulterated stock before its destruction but did not exercise this right. Consequently, the Court held that the company could not claim deprivation of its rights under Section 13(2) of the PFA Act.
Dismissing the application, a single bench of Justice YG Khobragade observed that the failure to act in a timely manner by Hindustan Coca-Cola and its co-accused disqualified them from challenging the admissibility of the evidence. The Court also denied an extension of the interim stay on criminal proceedings, clearing the way for the trial to proceed.
This Judgment underscores the judiciary’s stance on maintaining procedural accountability in food safety cases while affirming that delays in prosecution, though undesirable, do not automatically vitiate criminal proceedings if statutory rights were not exercised within the given timeframe. Hindustan Coca-Cola’s prolonged legal battle serves as a cautionary tale for corporations regarding the importance of addressing food safety allegations promptly and in accordance with the law.
Case Name:- Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt Ltd v. The State of Maharashtra
Case Number:- Criminal Application No. 2315 of 2010 with Criminal Application No. 4688 of 2024
Bench:- Justice YG Khobragade
Click here to access the order..