Cadbury moves SC against high court order on adulteration case
Confectionary major Cadbury India today requested the Supreme Court to stop proceedings in an adulteration case filed against it by the Kerala government.Cadbury is accused of selling "injurious" Dairy Milk chocolates in the state.
Cadbury India, in its petition, challenged a decision of the Kerala High Court, which had dismissed its plea and refused to stay proceedings against the company and its officials at Changanassery.During the proceedings, the bench -- comprising Justices Dalveer Bhandari and Deepak Verma -- suggested that the company face trial and cooperate with the magistrate during cross-examination of witnesses produced by the state authorities.
"Trial is in progress there. Evidence is to be recorded in this case. It would be much better for you to get rid of this at the trial court stage," the court had said.
However, on the company's request, the bench admitted Cadbury's petition and kept the matter for final disposal.
During the proceedings, advocate P Venugopal, who appeared for Cadbury, submitted that state officials had collected the samples in polythene bags and not containers -- as stipulated under Rule 14 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (PFA).
"Rule 14 of the PFA Act was clearly not followed while taking samples... rule mandates that the sample should be taken in a particular fashion and in a particular kind of container, it cannot be taken otherwise. The polythene bag does not come within the definition of either a bottle or a jar, and nor within the ambit of a suitable container," Cadbury said in its petition.
In October 2003, food inspectors had visited Cadbury's office premises at Changanassery, Kerala, and picked up 24 Dairy Milk chocolates of 25 gm each in three polythene bags.
The samples were later sent to analysts at Ernakulam, who found the chocolates "adulterated as the same contained uric acid to an extent of not less than 47.0 PPM", and thereby, injurious.
State officials then filed a criminal complaint before a Magistrate Court, following which the company and its nominees were charged under PFA rules.
