Calcutta High Court Acquits Hindustan Unilever Limited in Misbranding Case
In a significant legal development, the Calcutta High Court has acquitted the office bearers of Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL) in a criminal case pertaining to the alleged misbranding of their product.
Calcutta High Court Acquits Hindustan Unilever Limited in Misbranding Case
In a significant legal development, the Calcutta High Court has acquitted the office bearers of Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL) in a criminal case pertaining to the alleged misbranding of their product, 'Red Label Natural Care Tea'. This case, titled Hindustan Unilever Limited vs. State of West Bengal, had been a subject of legal contention for several years before reaching this pivotal verdict.
The case originated when a food inspector from the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC) filed a criminal complaint against Hindustan Unilever and its office bearers (petitioners). The accusation revolved around the misbranding of their popular Red Label tea product. Specifically, HUL was charged with violating Section 38 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, which prohibits the use of any reference to the Act or its rules on product labels. Additionally, the company faced allegations of violating Section 39, which prohibits the use of terms like 'recommended by medical profession.'
Initially, in 2014, the petitioners were convicted for misbranding the product by a municipal magistrate, who sentenced them to six months of simple imprisonment along with a fine of ₹5,000.
However, the legal battle did not end there. The conviction was subsequently set aside by a sessions court in Kolkata. Nevertheless, the matter was remitted back to the municipal magistrate to be reconsidered.
It was at this juncture that HUL approached the High Court to challenge the Sessions Court's decision to send the matter back to the Municipal Magistrate. The High Court allowed this plea and concluded that the sessions court should have acquitted the accused instead of ordering a re-trial.
Justice Subhendu Samanta, presiding over the case, played a pivotal role in this judgment. Notably, the judge observed significant discrepancies in the prosecution's case against Hindustan Unilever and its office bearers.
A crucial point raised by the judge was that the public analyst, who had provided an opinion that Brook Bond Red Label Tea was misbranded, was never produced in court by the prosecution to substantiate this opinion. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to provide any plausible explanation for why HUL might have misbranded its product.
Taking these factors into account, the judge reached the conclusion that the accused should be acquitted in the case. In his ruling, Justice Subhendu Samanta emphasized that the deformities and discrepancies apparent in the prosecution's case could not be remedied merely by remanding the case for further examination under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). He stressed that the appellate court should not have allowed the prosecution to correct these defects, which could potentially prejudice the accused.
In light of the Calcutta High Court's judgment, all the accused in the case, including HUL's office bearers, have been acquitted. This decision highlights the importance of a thorough and consistent prosecution case, as well as the need for a fair and transparent legal process. It serves as a reminder of the judiciary's role in ensuring justice is served and that legal proceedings are conducted in a just and lawful manner.
Important Links
