HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LIMITED versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: [2020] 9 S.C.R. 455 · Decided: 05-11-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L. NAGESWARA RAO · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
455
HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LIMITED
v.
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
(Criminal Appeal No. 715 of 2020)
NOVEMBER 05, 2020
[L. NAGESWARA RAO, HEMANT GUPTA AND
AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.]
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 – s.17 – Food
Safety and Standards Act, 2006 – s.97 – General Clauses Act, 1897
– s.6 – A complaint was filed by inspector of Food and Health on
the basis of a sample taken on 07.02.1989 in respect of Dalda
Vanaspati Khajoor Brand Ghee manufactured by the Company –
The said proceeding was decided by the Supreme Court in R. Banerjee
& Ors. v. H.D. Dubey & Ors., wherein the matter was remanded
back to the trial Magistrate to inquire into the question whether the
nomination forms nominating appellant and one another person
were received and acknowledged by the Local (Health) Authority –
In terms of the said directions, the trial Court passed an order
absolving the directors of the Company and prosecution was ordered
to continue against the appellant/nominated officer – Thereafter,
the trial Court in 2015, convicted the appellant under various
provisions of the 1954 Act – There was no order passed by the trial
Court to convict the Company of any offence – In an appeal, the
Additional Sessions Judge affirmed the conviction of the appellant
– However, the High Court in its order noticed that if the Company
is acquitted of the charges, the said benefit will also directly go to
the appellant – Thus, the conviction and sentence passed against
the appellant, being a nominated person of the Company was set
aside and the matter was remitted back to the trial Court for passing
the fresh judgment – Before the Supreme Court, the appellant sought
benefit under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 which came
after the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 was repealed –
Held: In the 2006 Act, the repeal and saving clause contained in
s.97(1)(iii) and (iv) specifically provides that repeal of the Act shall
not affect any investigation or remedy in respect of any such penalty,
forfeiture or punishment and the punishment may be imposed, “as
[2020] 9 S.C.R. 455
455
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
456
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 9 S.C.R.
if the 2006 Act had not been passed” – Thus, in view of s.97 of the
2006 Act, as also u/s.6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, the
proceedings would continue under the 1954 Act – No benefit can
be taken under the 2006 Act as the prosecution and punishment
under the 1954 Act is protected – As far as the course adopted by
the High Court to remand the matter to the trial Court is concerned,
there is no material distinction between s.141 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1882 and s.17 of the 1954 Act which makes the
companies as well as the nominated person to be held guilty of the
offences and/or liable to be proceeded and punished accordingly –
Clauses (a) and (b) of s.17 are not in alternative but in conjoint –
Therefore, in the absence of the Company, the nominated person
cannot be convicted or vice-versa – Since the Company was not
convicted by the trial Court, the finding of the High Court to revisit
the judgment will be unfair to the appellant/nominated person who
has been facing trial for more than last 30 years – The failure of
the trial Court to convict the Company renders the entire conviction
of the nominated person as unsustainable – Thus, the order passed
by the High Court is set aside.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. In terms of Section 6 of the General Clauses
Act, 1897, unless a different intention appears, the repeal of a
statute does not affect any investigation, legal proceeding or
remedy in respect of any such right, privilege, obligation, liability,
penalty, forfeiture or punishment and any such investigation, legal
proceeding or remedy may be instituted, continued or enforced,
and any such penalty, forfeiture or punishment may be imposed
as if the Repealing Act or Regulation had not been passed. But
in the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, the repeal and saving
clause contained in Section 97 (1)(iii) and (iv) specifically provides
that repeal of the Act shall not affect any investigation or remedy
in respect of any such penalty, forfeiture or punishment and the
punishment may be imposed, “as if the 2006 Act had not been
passed”. [Para 15][465-E-G]
2. Thus, in view of Section 97 of the 2006 Act, as also under
Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, the proceedings
would continue under the Act. No benefit can be taken under the
2006 Act as the prosecution an

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.