Madhya Pradesh High Court refuses to quash summons against Coca Cola for expired ‘Maaza’ in the restaurant, insisting that the manufacturer should recall such products.

The Petitioner HINDUSTAN COCA COLA BEVERAGES PVT. LTD filed a petition under section 482 of the Cr PC seeking quashing of the order dated 20.08.2014, whereby Ld Magistrate directed issuance of summons against the absconding accused persons including the petitioners. 
The Food Safety Officer, Food & Drugs Administration, Dewas, District Dewas (M.P.) took sample of “Maaza Mango Drink” from one Shree Vaishnavi Restaurant, on suspicion of its adulteration; and for its analysis.  A sample was sent to Food Testing Laboratory, for analysis and after due examination, its Report opined that the said sample is unsafe for consumption due to fungus growth formation on neck and mouth of bottle and also on product’s surface
The Deputy Director & Designated Officer, Food & Drugs Administration, Dewas, after recording its prima facie satisfaction, found of violation of Sections 51, 52, 58 and 59 of Food Safety & Standard Act, 2006 and in exercise of powers conferred under Section 36 (3) (e) of the Act granted approval for filing a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate
After the aforesaid authorization, on 22.03.2014 the Food Safety Officer filed a joint complaint against eight accused persons. Vide order dated 20.08.2014 Judicial Magistrate directed for issuance of summons against absconding accused persons.
 
“…The manufacturer or packer of an article of food shall be liable for such an article of food if it does not meet the requirements of this Act and the Rules and Regulations made thereunder. The distributors, packers, wholesalers and sellers, sell the goods on behalf of the manufacturer. The petitioners- manufacturer after manufacturing its goods sold its product to wholesalers, who further sold to the distributor and then sellers further sold it to the consumer. The manufacturer is also a seller and it is his duty that unsafe food products should not be put to sale to consumers. All- packer, wholesaler, distributor and seller work on a contract with a manufacturer. Therefore, it is the duty of the manufacturer to see that none of its product is there in the store of wholesaler, distributor or seller and before its expiry date, it should be removed or should have been recalled. Therefore, the manufacturer cannot shirk from its liability that it was seller who was selling unsafe product”, 
 
“At this stage, it cannot be said that only Accused No.1 was responsible for sale of unsafe food product i.e. “Mazza Mango Drink” and the fungal developed in the product while keeping in the shop of petitioners / Accused No.1 or it was there when it was dispatched from the manufacturing unit. At this stage, no such finding in this petition under Section 482 of the Code can be given”, 
 
…in this case the complaint has been filed under various sections alleging violation of the Act under which some of them are punishable with fine only and some of them are punishable with imprisonment; and power has been delegated to the Designated Officer by Commissioner, therefore, trial Court can examine this issue during the trial because the issue of validity of sanction is liable to be examined by the trial Court itself during trial by framing a specific issue. At this stage, it cannot be held that petitioner No.2 would be punished for imprisonment also.”

Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd & Anr v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh, Through Smt. Nirmala Somkuwar, Food Safety Officer