Reprieve For Brand Owners

Last week, the Supreme Court extricated another foreign company and its managing director from a food adulteration case (Pepsi Foods vs Magistrate). The magistrate had issued summons to Pepsi Foods, and the Allahabad High Court had dismissed the companys writ petition against criminal proceedings. The company then appealed to the Supreme Court.

While quashing the proceedings against the company and its managing director, the Supreme Court remarked: It is certainly one of those cases where there is an abuse of the process of law and the high court should not have shied away in exercising its jurisdiction. Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code are devised to advance justice and not to frustrate it. In our view, the high court should not have adopted such a rigid approach, which certainly has led to the miscarriage of justice in this case. Power of judicial review is discretionary but this was a case where the high court should have exercised it.

 

The complaint against the company was filed by a student of Lucknow. He went to a shop, Flavours Fast Food and Cool Corner, and bought a bottle of Lehar Pepsi. After drinking the contents of the bottle, he got a strange taste. On inspecting the bottle he found many white particles floating and then he felt giddy and nauseated.

When criminal proceedings were initiated against Pepsi Foods and its managing director, it moved the high court, but in vain. However, the Supreme Court upheld their case. Most large companies with reputed brand names face this kind of a problem. The question is whether a consumer in a distant place can take them to task if the bottler or the dealer has sold them defective products.

In this case, Pepsi Foods had lent its brand name to Residency Foods and Beverages Ltd for bottling Lehar Pepsi. The complainant did not explain what was Pepsi Foods role in manufacturing the adulterated beverage. His only allegation was that Pepsi Foods was the manufacturer of the bottle. He also did not swear that Pepsi manufactured the bottle and its contents. His sole information was from the shopkeeper.

The Supreme Court felt that the high court should have taken note of this factor. In the end the apex court persuaded the high court to quash the proceedings, using its power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 482 of CrPC.

There was another genuine reason why the company should not have been proceeded against. According to the Food Products Order, of the central government issued under the Essential Commodities Act, when a bottle is used for packing any fruit product it should be sealed in such a manner that it cannot be opened without destroying the licence number and the special identification mark of the manufacturer to be displayed on the top of the neck of the bottle. The licence number of the manufacturer must be exhibited prominently on the side label. In this case, the name of Pepsi Foods Ltd was not mentioned as the manufacturer on top of the cap of the bottle.

There was also nothing on record to show that the company held the licence for manufacturing the beverage and it was the genuine manufacturer. In such circumstances, the court said, It is no comfortable thought for the company to be told that they could appear before the court which is at a far-off place.

These two findings will help owners of famous brand names in similar circumstances, as they are not directly in control of the manufacturers of their products in distant places. So their culpability cannot be taken for granted in future.

In public interest

In their current enthusiasm for public interest cases, the courts seem to be duplicating their efforts in certain areas. While the Supreme Court was dealing with a case on import of toxic substances, the Delhi high court also admitted a similar petition and passed orders, which surpassed that of the Supreme Court.

Similarly, while the Supreme Court has been hearing the case of footpath vendors and other illegal occupants for several years now, the Delhi high court last week issued notice to the Centre and the state government on the same issue.

This overlapping of cases calls for a better coordination in the registries of both the high courts and the Supreme Court. With computerisation of the records and subject-wise classification of petitions, this should not be very difficult. Both the courts would be able to save judicial time.

The legal professionals also have a duty in this regard. When social activists and public spirited individuals bring cases to them, they must first verify whether similar cases are pending in the nearby high courts or the Supreme Court. Absence of such verification leads to a waste of their energies also. Since this has been happening far too often, the countrys legal minds should devise a method to coordinate the filing of public interest litigation.