On Wednesday, the Calcutta High Court cleared the officeholders of Hindustan Unilever Limited of any wrongdoing in a criminal case. This case pertained to allegations of misbranding their product 'Red Label Natural Care Tea.'

Justice Subhendu Samanta issued the verdict of release, having observed certain inconsistencies in the prosecution's argument against Hindustan Unilever and its executives.

The judge pointed out that the prosecution failed to present the public analyst who had rendered an opinion regarding the misbranding of Brook Bond Red Label Tea before the trial court, casting doubt on the validity of such an opinion.

Furthermore, the Court concluded that the prosecution did not provide any explanation for why Hindustan Unilever allegedly misbranded its product. In light of these factors, the judge ultimately ruled in favor of acquitting all the accused individuals in the case.

As background information, a food inspector employed by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC) initiated a criminal case against Hindustan Unilever and its office bearers (petitioners) on the grounds of alleged misbranding of their Red Label tea product.

The company faced accusations of violating Section 38 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, which prohibits the use of any reference to the Act, rules, and similar content on its product label. Additionally, they were accused of violating Section 39, which prohibits the use of phrases such as 'recommended by medical profession.'

In 2014, the petitioners were found guilty of misbranding the product by a municipal magistrate. They were subsequently sentenced to six months of simple imprisonment and ordered to pay a fine of ₹5,000.

The conviction was overturned by a sessions court in Kolkata. However, the case was sent back to the municipal magistrate for a fresh evaluation and consideration.

Subsequently, the company filed a plea with the High Court to challenge the decision of the Sessions Court to remand the matter back to the Municipal Magistrate for further consideration.

The High Court accepted the plea and determined that the Sessions Court should have acquitted the accused instead of remanding the case for a new trial.

The Court reasoned that because the Sessions Court had identified inconsistencies in the prosecution's case, it should have dismissed the entire prosecution case and upheld the appeal instead of ordering a retrial.

The High Court emphasized that the defects and discrepancies evident in the prosecution's case could not be rectified solely by remanding the case for further examination of the accused under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). Furthermore, the Appellate Court should not have permitted the prosecution to remedy these defects, as doing so could prejudice the accused.

As a result, the High Court acquitted all the accused individuals in the case.