Thane Food and Drugs Administration (FDA) had initiated criminal proceedings for making exaggerated claims that their product Complan helps children increase their height twice as fast.
Directors of Heinz India Private Limited got a breather from the Bombay high court recently in a criminal case registered against them for misleading advertisements.
The Thane Food and Drugs Administration (FDA) had initiated criminal proceedings for making exaggerated claims that their product Complan helps children increase their height twice as fast.
Judge BR Gavai, stayed proceedings against Nilesh Patel, managing director, DP Roy, director (supply chain), K Deshbrataram, director (sales), Ashok Barat, director (finance and chief financial officer), N Thrumbalam, director (marketing). Relief was granted to them considering the fact that there was no averment in the complaint as to what was their role in day-to-day activities of the company — so as to implicate them as accused in the case.
The court though has allowed the agency FDA to go ahead with prosecuting the company itself and its constituted attorney PS Ramesh. As per the petition, the proceedings were initiated by FDA on May 30, 2010, following a complaint lodged by Girgaum based non-governmental organisation Consumers Action on Safety and Health (CASH).
Taking note of purported exaggerated claims made in the advertisement — Complan Pijiye Aur Dugani Raftar Se Badhiye — CASH had forwarded a complaint to FDA in November 2009.
After preliminary investigations FDA inspector forwarded a proposal to senior officials of FDA seeking prosecution against the company and its directors under relevant sections of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
It was allowed and thus on May 30, 2010, a complaint with the additional metropolitan magistrate at Mazgaon came to be lodged. Acting on the complaint, the same day, the magistrate issued process against all the accused.
Following which the company and rest of the accused had moved the high court challenging the criminal proceedings contending no prima facie case was made out against them.
Their counsel Shirish Gupte pointed out that the directors were made accused because of their status as directors of the company. Besides, their plea also stated that the magistrate had failed to appreciate that there were no specific averments in the complaint against the directors that the offence was committed with their consent or connivance or that they were responsible for day-to-day work of the company.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}