HC refuses to drop charges against Nestle India Ltd.

Ahmedabad: The Gujarat high court has refused to discharge Nestle India Ltd in a 14-year-old food adulteration case registered in Vadodara by the municipal corporation’s food inspector.
The court ruled so because the company had not named a person responsible, which led the prosecution to initiate proceedings against the company itself.
As per case details, senior food inspector of Vadodara Municipal Corporation filed a complaint in 1997 in a magisterial court against Nestle for offences of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The complaint said a sample of Mango Teekha Pickle of Maggi brand was collected from a store and sent for analysis. This sample was reported to be adulterated and did not conform to the standards laid down in the act for pickle in edible oil.
The magistrate sent the sample to Central Food Laboratory, which also found that the sample was adulterated. The company requested to discharge it along with other accused, including the store keeper, from whom the sample was collected. The court discharged the store keeper, but dismissed Nestle’s plea and imposed a fine of Rs 3,000 on it. The company filed a revision application in the fast track court, but it was turned down in June last year.
Finally, Nestle approached the high court, urging it to quash the orders of lower courts and to discharge its name from the case. Its counsel contended that the food inspector’s complaint was vague, and a mere statement from the complainant is not sufficient to hold the company and its directors liable in the absence of any specific allegations regarding the role played by the management of the company.
The company’s counsel also contended that since the food inspector did not know the officebearer responsible for the affair, the company was included in the case as accused. Hence the company’s name should be removed.
However, justice M D Shah rejected the contentions on the ground that Nestle did not declare the name of the person or nominee who would be responsible for the conduct of the business, though a letter was written by the food inspector to the company. Since there is no nomination, the company would have to face prosecution.