Introduction
The Calcutta High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against a manager of a dairy manufacturing company in a case concerning packaged lassi allegedly found to contain E. coli and elevated levels of coliform bacteria.
The Court held that an individual manager cannot be prosecuted vicariously under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 when the company that allegedly committed the offence has itself not been made an accused.
Background of the Case
The case originated from an inspection conducted by a Food Safety Officer at a food stall at Bandel Railway Station, Hooghly, in March 2021.
The officer purchased eight packets of packaged lassi manufactured by a dairy company. A sample was subsequently sent to a laboratory for analysis.
The laboratory report declared the product to be “unsafe food”, allegedly due to the presence of E. coli and elevated coliform counts.
Criminal proceedings were thereafter initiated against several persons, including the company’s manager.
However, the manufacturing company itself was not arraigned as an accused.
The manager approached the Calcutta High Court challenging the proceedings against him.
Company’s Prosecution Is Foundational to Manager’s Liability
The High Court examined Section 66 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, which provides for liability of persons who were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of a company’s business when an offence is committed by the company.
The Court held that prosecution of the company is a necessary foundation for imposing vicarious criminal liability on its officers or employees.
In other words, an individual cannot ordinarily be prosecuted in a representative capacity while completely leaving the corporate entity out of the criminal proceedings.
Manager Cannot Be Treated as the Company
The Court rejected the argument that describing the accused as the company’s “Manager” was sufficient to satisfy the statutory requirement.
The High Court clarified that a company and its officers are separate legal entities.
Therefore:
- The company must itself be formally arraigned where the statute makes its commission of an offence the basis for vicarious liability.
- Merely mentioning an accused’s designation does not amount to prosecuting the company.
- The criminal liability of an employee cannot exist independently of the statutory liability of the corporate entity.
The Court relied upon principles laid down by the Supreme Court concerning vicarious liability of company officers.
Delay in Food Analysis Also Raised Concerns
The High Court also considered the significant delay in the analysis of the lassi sample.
Under Section 46(3) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, the Food Analyst is required to deliver the report within the prescribed period. In the present case, the sample was received by the laboratory on March 12, 2021, whereas the report was generated only on May 20, 2021.
The authorities attributed the delay to COVID-19-related difficulties and staffing issues.
However, the Court noted that the delay was particularly relevant because lassi is a perishable dairy product.
Concern Over Sample Integrity
The Court observed that perishable food products can undergo biological and microbial changes over time.
The substantial delay therefore raised concerns regarding:
- The integrity of the sample;
- The reliability of the analysis after such a long period; and
- The accused’s statutory opportunity to seek re-analysis of the sample.
The Court found that these circumstances caused prejudice to the accused.
Procedural Deficiencies Also Noted
Apart from the company’s non-joinder, the High Court also identified deficiencies concerning the statutory procedure followed before initiating prosecution.
The Court examined aspects relating to the authorization of the Food Safety Officer and the procedure under the relevant provisions of the Food Safety and Standards Act.
According to the Court, the cumulative procedural defects strengthened the case for quashing the proceedings against the manager.
Court’s Decision
The Calcutta High Court ultimately quashed the criminal proceedings against the manager, holding that the prosecution suffered from fundamental legal and procedural defects.
The Court clarified, however, that its decision did not prevent proceedings against the remaining accused from continuing in accordance with law.
Significance of the Judgment
The judgment is significant for food businesses and corporate officers because it reinforces an important principle of criminal law:
Vicarious criminal liability must have a clear statutory foundation.
The ruling also highlights that:
- A company and its officers are distinct legal entities.
- Where the statute makes the company’s commission of an offence foundational to an officer’s liability, the company must ordinarily be prosecuted.
- Mere designation as a manager or officer does not automatically establish criminal liability.
- Statutory safeguards concerning food sampling and analysis must be followed carefully.
- Delay in analysing perishable food samples can have serious consequences for the fairness of the prosecution.
Conclusion
The Calcutta High Court’s decision reinforces that criminal prosecution of company officials cannot be sustained merely because of their designation within the organisation. Where the law creates vicarious liability based on an offence committed by the company, the corporate entity’s prosecution is foundational to proceeding against its officers.
The judgment also underscores the importance of strictly following statutory procedures in food safety prosecutions, particularly when dealing with perishable products where delay can affect the integrity of the sample and the accused’s statutory rights.
