PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD. versus FOOD INSPECTOR AND ANR.

Citation: [2010] 13 S.C.R. 993 · Decided: 18-11-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ALTAMAS KABIR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2010) 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 993 
PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD. 
v. 
FOOD INSPECTOR AND ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 836 of 2010) 
NOVEMBER 18, 2010 
[ALTAMAS KABIR, CYRIAC JOSEPH AND DEEPAK 
VERMA, JJ.) 
A 
8 
Code of Criminal Procedure, .1908: s. 482 - Quashing of 
proceedings - A/legation of food adulteration - Report of C 
Public analyst that 'sweetened carbonated water' 
manufactured by appellant-company contained pesticide 
residue Carbofuran, to the extent of 0.001mg per litre and, 
therefore, was adulterated within the meaning of r. 65 of 
Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 and s.2(ia)(h) 
D 
of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - Criminal 
proceedings against the appellant-company and its Directors 
- Petition for quashing the proceedings, dismissed by High 
Court - On appeal, held: Criminal proceedings liable to be 
quashed - Although, carbonated water was not included in the 
E 
original Table appended to Rule 65 of the 1955 Rules, it was 
·,introduced in Item 23 of the Table under the heading 
"Ch1orpyrifos" with effect from 17th June, 2009, and the 
tolerance· li171it of the presence of insecticide residue was 
prescribed as O.OQ1 mg/litre, which, in fact, was the amount 
F 
of insecticide residu&-fou17d by the Public Analyst - High 
Court had itself observed that mere presence of insecticide 
residue to any extent did not justify an a/legation that the 
article of food was adulterated, but contrary to such 
observation, it went on to hold that the product was adulterated 
- Both the questions regarding the failure of the Central G · 
Government to frame Rules to define the Laboratories, where 
samples of food could be analysed by the Public Analyst, or 
to define the validated methods of analysis were of great 
993 
H 
994 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010] 13 (AOOL.) S.C.R. 
A importance for the purpose of bringing home a charge against 
the accused, but were not considered by High Court - High 
Court also overlooked the fact that the percentage of 
pesticides found by the Public Analyst was within the tolerance 
limits subsequently prescribed in respect of such product -
B The order of the High Court is set aside - Prevention of Food 
Adulteration Rules, 1955 - r.65; Part XIV; Item 23 in Table 
appended to Part XIV - Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 
1954 - ss.2(ia)(h), 2(m) 
C 
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954: s. 17 -
Vicarious liability of Directors of a Company - Held: In a 
complaint against a Company and its Directors, the 
complainant has to indicate in the complaint itself as to 
whether the Directors concerned were either in-charge of or 
responsible to the Company for its day-to-day management, 
D or whether they were responsible to the Company for the 
conduct of its business - A mere bald statement that a 
person was a Director of the Company against which certain 
allegations were made is not sufficient to make such Director 
liable in the absence of any specific allegations regarding his 
E role in the management of the Company - In the instant 
case, since Manager, Quality Control was nominated uls. 17(2) 
to be in-charge and responsible to the Company for the 
conduct of its business, the appellant-company and its 
Directors could not be held liable for the adulteration of food 
F - Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 - r.65 -
Insecticide Act, 1968 - s.33. 
The appellants were the manufacturer of Pepsi, a 
sweetened carbonated water. On 25th October, 2006, the 
G Food Inspector of Vigilance Department purchased three 
bottles of Pepsi. The bottles were sealed. On the next 
day, one part of the sample was forwarded to the Public 
Analyst. On 28th October, 2006, the Public Analyst 
submitted his report stating that upon analysis of the 
H sample of Pepsi using the Directorate General of Health 
PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD. v. FOOD 
995 
INSPECTOR AND ANR. 
Services ·(DGHS) method, pesticide residue Carbofuran, 
A 
to the extent of 0.001 mg per litre was detected therein 
and, therefore, the sample was adulterated within the 
meaning of Rule 65 of the Prevention of Food 
Adulteration Rules, 1955 and Section 2(ia)(h) of the 
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. Based upon 
B 
the report of the Public Analyst, the Magistrate took 
cognizance of the offence and issued process against 
the appellants. 
The· appellants filed a petition under Section 482 
Cr.P.C. for quashing of the order of the magistrate. The 
C 
Single Judge of the High court dismissed
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.