NDLI: Hindustan Unilever Limited Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954 Food Safety
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	General Clauses Act, 1897 (10 of 1897) Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (37 of 1954) Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (34 of 2006)
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Allowed
Headnote	Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 – s.17 – FoodSafety and Standards Act, 2006 – s.97 – General Clauses Act, 1897– s.6 – A complaint was filed by inspector of Food and Health onthe basis of a sample taken on 07.02.1989 in respect of DaldaVanaspati Khajoor Brand Ghee manufactured by the Company –The said proceeding was decided by the Supreme Court in R. Banerjee& Ors. v. H.D. Dubey & Ors., wherein the matter was remandedback to the trial Magistrate to inquire into the question whether thenomination forms nominating appellant and one another personwere received and acknowledged by the Local (Health) Authority –In terms of the said directions, the trial Court passed an orderabsolving the directors of the Company and prosecution was orderedto continue against the appellant/nominated officer – Thereafter,the trial Court in 2015, convicted the appellant under variousprovisions of the 1954 Act – There was no order passed by the trialCourt to convict the Company of any offence – In an appeal, theAdditional Sessions Judge affirmed the conviction of the appellant– However, the High Court in its order noticed that if the Companyis acquitted of the charges, the said benefit will also directly go tothe appellant – Thus, the conviction and sentence passed againstthe appellant, being a nominated person of the Company was setaside and the matter was remitted back to the trial Court for passingthe fresh judgment – Before the Supreme Court, the appellant soughtbenefit under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 which cameafter the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 was repealed –Held: In the 2006 Act, the repeal and saving clause contained ins.97(1)(iii) and (iv) specifically provides that repeal of the Act shallnot affect any investigation or remedy in respect of any such penalty,forfeiture or punishment and the punishment may be imposed, “asif the 2006 Act had not been passed” – Thus, in view of s.97 of the2006 Act, as also u/s.6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, theproceedings would continue under the 1954 Act – No benefit canbe taken under the 2006 Act as the prosecution and punishmentunder the 1954 Act is protected – As far as the course adopted bythe High Court to remand the matter to the trial Court is concerned,there is no material distinction between s.141 of the NegotiableInstruments Act, 1882 and s.17 of the 1954 Act which makes thecompanies as well as the nominated person to be held guilty of theoffences and/or liable to be proceeded and punished accordingly –Clauses (a) and (b) of s.17 are not in alternative but in conjoint –Therefore, in the absence of the Company, the nominated personcannot be convicted or vice-versa – Since the Company was notconvicted by the trial Court, the finding of the High Court to revisitthe judgment will be unfair to the appellant/nominated person whohas been facing trial for more than last 30 years – The failure ofthe trial Court to convict the Company renders the entire convictionof the nominated person as unsustainable – Thus, the order passedby the High Court is set aside.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta
Neutral Citation	2020 INSC 634
Petitioner	Hindustan Unilever Limited
Respondent	The State Of Madhya Pradesh
SCR	[2020] 9 S.C.R. 455
Judgement Date	2020-11-05
Case Number	715

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Hindustan Unilever Limited Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh

Please Log-in to view this content

Hindustan Unilever Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Rajendra and Two Others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

Ranganatha Reddiar Vs. The State of Kerala

State of Orissa Vs. K. Rajeshwar Rao

State of Kerala Etc. Etc. Vs. Alaserry Mohammed Etc. Etc.

State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Kartar Singh

State of H.p. Vs. Narendra Kumar and Anr

M. V. Krishnan Nambissan Vs. State of Kerala

K. Krishna Iyer Vs. State of Kerala and Anr.

Hindustan Unilever Limited Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh

Hindustan Unilever Limited Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Hindustan Unilever Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Rajendra and Two Others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

Ranganatha Reddiar Vs. The State of Kerala

State of Orissa Vs. K. Rajeshwar Rao

State of Kerala Etc. Etc. Vs. Alaserry Mohammed Etc. Etc.

State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Kartar Singh

State of H.p. Vs. Narendra Kumar and Anr

M. V. Krishnan Nambissan Vs. State of Kerala

K. Krishna Iyer Vs. State of Kerala and Anr.

Hindustan Unilever Limited Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh