Supreme Court Ruled in Favour of Hindustan Unilever Ltd in a Long-Standing Trial for More than 30 Years

Supreme Court Ruled in Favour of Hindustan Unilever in a Long-Standing Trial for More than 30 Years

The Supreme Court on Thursday by three judges' bench, comprising of Hon'ble Justices L. Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta, Ajay Rastogi allowed the appeals filed in the case of Hindustan Unilever Ltd vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh whereby the challenge in the present appeals were arising out of an order passed by High Court of Madhya Pradesh, whereby the revision filed by Shri Nirmal Sen, appellant/Nominated Officer(In charge) of the Hindustan Unilever Limited, was allowed, however the matter was remitted back to the trial court to revisit the evidence adduced by both the parties.

Two folds arguments were raised by the learned counsels for the appellant/Nominated Officer, Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, argued that the appellant was charged for the violation of Section 2(ia)(m) read with Section 7(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Standards Act, 1954 (which was later repealed),such violation attracted a sentence of not less than six months and up to 3 years and a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 16(1)(a)(i), whereas under the Food Safety and Standards Act2006 Act, the punishment of such adulteration which is related to only higher melting point is fine of Rs.5 lakhs and Rs.1 lakh under Sections 3(1)(zx) and 3(1)(i) respectively.

Mr. Siddharth Luthra, learned senior counsel for the appellant-Company raised an argument that the Company was not convicted by the trial court. Therefore, the High Court in revision could not have passed an order of retrial, when the Company was not given any notice of being heard. Since there was no order of conviction by the trial court, as also no opportunity of hearing was granted, such order was in contravention of sub-section (2) of Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

The Court noted, "The benefit of amendments in the Act, has been rightly granted to the accused in an appeal arising out of the proceedings under the Act. But in the present case, the Act has been repealed by Section 97 of the 2006 Act, however, the punishments imposed under the Act have been protected. Section 97 of the 2006 Act, which came into force on 5.8.2011."

Further the court added that Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 provides the effect of repeal. Unless different intention appears, the repeal of a statute does not affect any investigation, legal proceeding or remedy in respect of any such right, privilege, obligation, liability, penalty, forfeiture or punishment and any such investigation, legal proceeding or remedy may be instituted, continued or enforced, and any such penalty, forfeiture or punishment may be imposed as if the Repealing Act or Regulation had not been passed.

However, the top court remarked, "But in the 2006 Act, the repeal and saving clause contained in Section 97 (1)(iii) and (iv) specifically provides that repeal of the Act shall not affect any investigation or remedy in respect of any such penalty, forfeiture or punishment and the punishment may be imposed, " as if the 2006 Act had not been passed".

The Court dealt with the question as to whether penalty or prosecution can continue or be initiated under the repealed provisions. To this the Court stated that the, order of remand by the High Court to the trial court against the Company cannot be sustained for the reason that such an order was passed without giving an opportunity of hearing, as contemplated under Section 401(2) of the CrPC.

The question was now narrowed down as to whether the course adopted by the High Court to remand the matter to the trial court after more than 30 years to cure the defect which goes to the root of the trial, though permissible in law, is justified.

The Court noted, there was no material distinction between Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and Section 17 of the 1954 Act which makes the Company as well as the Nominated Person to be held guilty of the offences and/or liable to be proceeded and punished accordingly. Clauses (a) and (b) were not in the alternative but conjoint.

Therefore, in the absence of the Company, the Nominated Person cannot be convicted or vice versa. Since the Company was not convicted by the trial court, the court found that the finding of the High Court to revisit the judgment would be unfair to the appellant/Nominated Person who has been facing trial for more than last 30 years and hence the appeals were allowed and the order passed by Madhya Pradesh High Court were set aside.