The Kolkata High Court quashed the criminal case against former MD of Mead Johnson India, ruling that food‑safety violations must be prosecuted under the Food Safety and Standards (FSS) Act, not the IPC. The judgment underscores a shift toward stricter regulatory adherence in infant nutrition.

Key Takeaways

  • The court prioritized the FSS Act over IPC for food‑safety offences.
  • A managing director cannot be personally prosecuted solely based on his designation.
  • Four‑year investigation delays and product expiry influenced the dismissal.

Kolkata High Court on July 8 delivered a landmark ruling, dismissing the criminal proceedings against former Managing Director Sailesh Venkatesan of Mead Johnson India. The bench held that alleged “live insect” and black mould contamination in the infant formula should be pursued exclusively under the Food Safety and Standards (FSS) Act, not the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Background of the Complaint

In November 2015, a consumer alleged that a tin of Mead Johnson’s Enfamil A+ Stage 3 Follow‑Up Formula contained a live insect and black dust (mould) when opened. The product, marketed for children aged 12‑24 months, is a staple in many Indian households. The complainant claimed the sub‑standard formula had adversely affected her baby’s health.

Legal Proceedings and Delays

The complaint led to an FIR in 2015, but a formal notice to Mead Johnson India and its MD was not issued until September 2021—nearly six years later. A chargesheet filed on September 7, 2021 named three accused: the former MD, the distributor, and the owner of a pharmacy that sold the product. The trial court took cognizance on October 7, 2021, and the petitioner subsequently approached the High Court.

Court’s Reasoning

Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das observed that Section 66 of the FSS Act designates a “person in charge of an establishment” as the liable party for violations, not the company’s directors by virtue of their titles. The judge emphasized that the FIR and subsequent investigation failed to allege any personal wrongdoing by Venkatesan; the charges were predicated solely on his designation.

Furthermore, the court highlighted that the public health laboratory had already declared the sampled product non‑conforming and unsafe. By the time the case reached the High Court, the batch’s shelf‑life had expired, rendering the evidence moot. The prolonged delay and procedural lapses were deemed an abuse of process.

Implications for Food‑Safety Enforcement

This judgment clarifies the jurisdictional hierarchy: food‑related offences must be pursued under the FSS Act, which supersedes other statutes. It also signals that corporate executives cannot be automatically targeted without concrete, individual allegations. For regulators, the ruling reinforces the need for prompt investigations and underscores the importance of involving designated food‑safety authorities rather than relying on general criminal law.