The Calcutta High Court has dismissed a criminal case against former Mead Johnson India MD Sailesh Venkatesan regarding a 2015 baby formula complaint. The court ruled that corporate directors cannot be held automatically liable under the Indian Penal Code if the company is not named. This decision removes a long-standing legal burden that had persisted for over a decade since the initial incident.
The Calcutta High Court has officially quashed a criminal case against Sailesh Venkatesan, the former Managing Director of Mead Johnson India. The legal matter stemmed from a private complaint filed in November 2015, which alleged that an insect was discovered inside a container of Enfamil A+ Stage 3 infant formula. The High Court’s decision marks a definitive end to the proceedings, citing significant legal and procedural errors in how the case was handled.
Legal Reasoning on Director Liability
Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das delivered a clear judgment regarding corporate accountability. The court held that under the Indian Penal Code, corporate directors cannot be held vicariously liable for the actions of a company unless there is specific statutory backing. A key factor in this ruling was that the company itself had not been named as an accused party in the final charge sheet. By omitting the corporate entity, the prosecution failed to establish a basis for holding an individual director responsible for the alleged quality issue.
Procedural Flaws and Statutory Conflicts
The court also pointed to major procedural lapses during the investigation. While the original FIR named both the company and a pharmacy, the police later submitted a charge sheet in September 2021 that only identified the former Managing Director as an accused. The High Court noted that the police exceeded their jurisdiction by using general provisions of the Indian Penal Code. It clarified that food-related quality complaints fall under the specialized Food Safety and Standards Act (FSS Act) of 2006, which provides clear guidelines on how such cases must be investigated and prosecuted by authorized officials rather than through general criminal complaints.
Impact of Delays on Legal Process
Beyond the issues of liability, the court highlighted that the proceedings were severely delayed. The charge sheet was filed six years after the initial 2015 incident, which the court found to be time-barred under Section 77 of the FSS Act. This section limits the time for taking notice of offenses to one year from the date of the incident. The delay caused significant prejudice, as the infant formula had long passed its expiration date, making it impossible to perform a laboratory re-test to verify the original complaint. Given these factors, the court concluded that allowing the case to continue would be an abuse of the legal process and ordered the quashing of the FIR, the charge sheet, and all associated summons.
For investors and stakeholders, this ruling brings closure to a long-standing legal risk associated with the company’s past operations. While the legal proceedings are now dismissed, the primary focus for the company remains its regulatory compliance and adherence to the Food Safety and Standards Act, which continues to govern the industry's testing and quality protocols in India.