LI Network
Published on: 29 September 2023 at 12:33 IST
In a significant verdict, the Calcutta High Court has acquitted the office bearers of Hindustan Unilever Limited in a criminal case pertaining to the alleged misbranding of their product, ‘Red Label Natural Care Tea’ [Hindustan Unilever Limited vs State of West Bengal].
Justice Subhendu Samanta rendered the acquittal order after identifying certain inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case against Hindustan Unilever and its executives.
Justice Samanta highlighted that the public analyst, whose opinion suggested that Brook Bond Red Label Tea had been misbranded, was never presented by the prosecution before the trial court to substantiate such an assertion.
Additionally, the Court observed that the prosecution had failed to provide any rationale for why Hindustan Unilever would misbrand its product. These factors collectively led the judge to acquit all the accused in the case.
The background of the case involves a food inspector from the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC) initiating a criminal case against Hindustan Unilever and its office bearers (petitioners) over the alleged misbranding of their Red Label tea product.
The company was accused of contravening Section 38 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, which prohibits the use of any reference to the Act, its rules, etc., on product labels. Additionally, the company faced charges of violating Section 39, which prohibits the use of phrases like ‘recommended by medical profession.’
In 2014, the petitioners were convicted for misbranding the product by a municipal magistrate, who imposed a sentence of six months of simple imprisonment along with a fine of ₹5,000.
Subsequently, a sessions court in Kolkata set aside the conviction, but the matter was referred back to the municipal magistrate for reconsideration.
In response, the company approached the High Court, challenging the decision of the Sessions Court to remand the matter to the Municipal Magistrate.
The High Court granted the plea and concluded that the Sessions Court should have acquitted the accused rather than ordering a retrial.
The High Court contended that the Sessions Court should have dismissed the entire prosecution case, given the discrepancies in the prosecution’s arguments and the potential prejudice to the accused.
Hence, the High Court acquitted all the accused involved in the case.
