Featured image for Supreme Court Judgment dated 29-11-2019 in case of petitioner name M/s Alkem Laboratories Ltd. vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.
| |

Alkem Laboratories vs. State of Madhya Pradesh: Supreme Court Quashes Food Misbranding Case

Updated on

The case of M/s Alkem Laboratories Ltd. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. revolves around the prosecution of a pharmaceutical company under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 for alleged misbranding of a sugar-free jelly product. The Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether the prosecution was valid, given the procedural lapses and the denial of the company’s right to independent sample testing.

This ruling is significant in interpreting the rights of accused parties under food safety laws and the obligations of enforcement authorities to ensure fair trials.

Background of the Case

The appellant, Alkem Laboratories Ltd., was the marketer of a packaged food product, ‘Orange Tammy Sugarless Jelly’ (hereinafter ‘Jelly’). The product was manufactured separately by Cachet Pharmaceuticals Private Limited, which was not a party to the case.

On October 3, 2008, a Food Inspector from the Food and Drug Administration, Bhopal, conducted an inspection at Valecha Enterprises, a retailer in Bhopal, and collected three sealed jars of the Jelly. The samples were sent to the State Food Testing Laboratory for analysis.

Findings of the State Laboratory

  • The Public Analyst’s Report, issued on November 26, 2008, concluded that the Jelly contained sugar, contrary to its packaging label claim of being ‘sugarless’.
  • Based on this finding, the Food Inspector filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate in Bhopal under Section 16(1)(a)(ii) read with Sections 2(ix)(g) and 7(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 for selling a misbranded food article.

Legal Proceedings

Special Magistrate’s Order

  • The retailer initially did not provide a receipt of purchase from Alkem Laboratories but later submitted it.
  • On August 26, 2014, the retailer filed an application under Section 20A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act to implead Alkem Laboratories as an accused.
  • The Special Magistrate allowed the impleadment of Alkem Laboratories on September 1, 2015, making it a party to the case.

High Court’s Ruling

Alkem Laboratories approached the Madhya Pradesh High Court seeking to quash its impleadment. The High Court, however, dismissed the plea on April 11, 2018, holding:

  • Mens rea (criminal intent) was not required for the offence of misbranding.
  • The appellant, despite being only the marketer, was responsible for the product’s labeling claims.
  • The denial of the company’s right to seek independent testing was not prejudicial as this right was only available in cases of ‘adulteration’ and not ‘misbranding’.
  • The delay in impleading Alkem Laboratories was justified, as the authorities made reasonable efforts to contact them.

Alkem Laboratories then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Arguments Before the Supreme Court

Arguments by Alkem Laboratories

  • The application under Section 20A was not maintainable as it was filed by a retailer, who should also be considered a distributor or dealer under the Act.
  • The company was denied its statutory right under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act to get the sample tested by the Central Food Laboratory.
  • The authorities made no reasonable efforts to contact them, despite their official address being available on the product packaging.
  • The delay in impleading them (five years after the initial complaint) prejudiced their defense.

Arguments by the State of Madhya Pradesh

  • The right under Section 13(2) applied only to cases of adulteration, not misbranding.
  • The delay in impleading the appellant was due to their failure to respond to authorities.
  • The prosecution’s case was valid as the Public Analyst’s Report confirmed the misbranding.

Supreme Court’s Judgment

The Supreme Court quashed the criminal proceedings against Alkem Laboratories, ruling in their favor. The Court’s key observations were:

1. Right to Seek Independent Testing

  • The Court held that Section 13(2) is not limited to cases of adulteration but also applies to misbranding if testing of the food product is integral to the charge.
  • It stated:

    “It would be absurd and discriminatory for the prosecution to rely on the Public Analyst’s Report while denying the accused the right to challenge it.”

  • The Court reaffirmed its earlier rulings that denial of independent testing causes serious prejudice to the accused.

2. Procedural Lapses by Authorities

  • The Court found that the authorities failed to notify Alkem Laboratories at the outset, as required under Sections 11 and 14A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.
  • The Court ruled that:

    “The Appellant lost the opportunity to get the sample re-tested due to the negligence of the Food Inspector.”

3. Unreasonable Delay in Impleadment

  • The five-year delay in impleading the company deprived it of a fair defense.
  • The Court emphasized that procedural fairness is essential in criminal cases.

Impact of the Judgment

The Supreme Court’s ruling sets a strong precedent for future cases involving food safety laws and misbranding allegations.

  • Expanded Rights of Accused: Affirms that the right to independent testing applies to misbranding cases.
  • Stricter Compliance for Food Inspectors: Ensures authorities follow due process before prosecuting companies.
  • Fair Trial Protections: Recognizes that procedural lapses can invalidate criminal proceedings.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in this case reinforces the principle that criminal liability cannot be imposed without adhering to procedural fairness. The ruling ensures that accused parties retain their statutory rights to contest allegations, especially in cases where scientific testing forms the basis of prosecution. By quashing the criminal proceedings, the Court has upheld the fundamental tenets of justice in regulatory prosecutions.


Petitioner Name: M/s Alkem Laboratories Ltd..
Respondent Name: State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr..
Judgment By: Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Justice Krishna Murari.
Place Of Incident: Bhopal.
Judgment Date: 29-11-2019.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Ms Alkem Laboratori vs State of Madhya Prad Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 29-11-2019.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Fraud and Forgery
See all petitions in Legal Malpractice
See all petitions in Other Cases
See all petitions in Judgment by Mohan M. Shantanagoudar
See all petitions in Judgment by Krishna Murari
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments November 2019
See all petitions in 2019 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category

Similar Posts