Calcutta High Court Dismisses Case Against Former Mead Johnson MD in Baby Food Incident

Calcutta High Court Dismisses Case Against Former Mead Johnson MD

In a significant legal development, the Calcutta High Court has dismissed a criminal case against the former Managing Director of Mead Johnson India. The case centered on allegations that an insect was discovered in a baby food product, Enfamil A+ Stage 3 follow-up infant formula, as claimed in the case Sailesh Venkatesan v. The State of West Bengal and anr.

Contents

Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das presided over the single-judge bench that delivered the judgment. The Court concluded that corporate directors can’t be held vicariously liable under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) if the company itself is not listed as an accused. Justice Das emphasized the absence of automatic vicarious liability under the IPC, stating, “When the company is the offender, vicarious liability of the Directors cannot be imputed automatically in the absence of any statutory provision to this effect. An individual who has perpetrated the commission of an offence on behalf of a company can be made accused along with the company if there is sufficient evidence of his active role coupled with the criminal intent.”

Background of the Case

The case originated from a private complaint filed by a woman in November 2015. She alleged finding black dust particles, suspected to be mould, and a live insect inside the baby formula container. Initially, the First Information Report (FIR) was registered against Mead Johnson and the retail pharmacy, MedPlus. However, the police investigation extended over six years, culminating in a charge sheet in September 2021 that omitted the company as an accused and instead named the Managing Director as Accused No. 3.

In response, the director sought the High Court’s intervention to quash the FIR and the subsequent charge sheet pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore.

Legal Reasoning and Court’s Decision

The Court identified several procedural flaws in the prosecution’s case that were deemed fatal. It relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Ramnath v. State of UP, reiterating that the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSS Act), supersedes general IPC sections related to food quality and adulteration. Justice Das pointed out that under Section 42 of the FSS Act, only statutory authorities like Food Safety Officers are empowered to initiate prosecutions, rendering the police’s actions outside their jurisdiction.

Additionally, the prosecution was found to be time-barred under Section 77 of the FSS Act, which mandates that an offense cannot be considered by the court after one year from its occurrence. In this case, the charge sheet was filed six years post-incident, thereby violating the statutory time limit.

The Court also noted that the delayed proceedings caused the product’s “best before” date to lapse, depriving the manufacturer of the right to demand a laboratory re-test to defend the product’s quality. As a result, the magistrate’s cognizance of the charge sheet was deemed mechanical and lacking application of mind.

Concluding that the proceedings constituted an abuse of legal process, the High Court quashed the FIR, the charge sheet, and the summons against the director. Senior Advocate Sudipta Sarkar, along with Advocates R Jawhar Lal, S Prasad, Daipayan Dan, and Meghna Kumar, represented the petitioner. The State was represented by Public Prosecutor Debasish Roy and Advocate Saryati Dutta, K Roy.

The judgment serves as a critical precedent for understanding the limits of vicarious liability and jurisdictional authority under Indian food safety laws.