ORDER

B. Sasi Mahendran, J.

The 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendant-Petitioner-Appellants (hereinafter referred to as the "Appellants") have filed this appeal seeking to set aside the order delivered by the learned High Court Judge of the Provincial High Court of the North Western Province holden in Kurunegala dated 8th August 2018 in Revision Application No. 64/2015, along with the judgement issued by the learned Magistrate of Pillassa on 24th April 2015 in Case No. 68866/11.

The Appellant has inter alia prayed for the following reliefs;

a. Allow this appeal, b. Set aside the order dated 8^th August 2018 of the learned High Court Judge of the North Western Province holden at Kurunegala in HCRA 64/2015;

c. Grant the reliefs prayed for in the prayers to the revision application of the Petitioners in HCRA 64/2015 in the High Court of the North Western Province holden at Kurunegala, dated 10th of September 2015;

d. Grant costs and e. Grant such other and further reliefs.

The Complainant-Respondent-Respondent (hereinafter referred to as the “Complainant”) instituted an action in the Magistrate court of Pillassa under and in terms of the provisions of the Food Act (as amended) by charge sheet dated 17 November 2011 naming the manager as the 1^st Appellant and the trader namely Mohmed Anas of the Wayamba Lanka Traders, who sold the packet of Milo on 29th of May 2011.

On 15.03.2012, the prosecution submitted an amended complaint, naming the Manager of Nestle Lanka Private Limited as the 1st Accused, the Nestle Lanka PLC as the 2nd Accused and the Directors of Nestle Lanka PLC as the 3rd to 8th Accused. A further amended complaint has been filed on 2012.08.09 naming Nestle Lanka PLC as the 1st accused and the Board of Directors of the company as the 2nd to 7th accused.

When the matter was taken up on 23rd May 2013, counsels for the Accused raised a preliminary objection, asserting that proceedings could not be sustained against the said party on the basis that the 2nd Accused was a non-existent legal entity. As a result, the prosecution sought to amend the complaint.

Consequently, the Court directed them to file written submissions. These objections were overruled by the learned Magistrate, and the learned Magistrate proceeded with the trial. After the conclusion of the trial, the Learned Magistrate, by judgment dated 24.04.2015, found the Accused guilty of all charges. Dissatisfied with this decision, the Accused-Appellant filed a revision application before the High Court of Kurunagala. By order dated 08.08.2018, the learned High Court Judge dismissed the revision application and upheld the judgment of the Learned Magistrate.

Being aggrieved by the said order, the Appellant preferred this appeal.

When the matter was taken up before this Court on 11.09.2025, the learned state counsel representing the Complainant-Respondent apprised the Court that, in view of the Supreme Court’s judgment in SC Appeal No. 128/19 delivered on 27.10.2022, the legal position pertinent to the present appeal now stands resolved in favour of the Petitioner-Appellant.

It is observed that the amended charge sheet records the date of detection as 28th June 2011. While the original plaint was filed on 17th November 2011, the amended plaint dated 9th August 2012 includes the 2nd to 7th Accused-Appellants directors of Nestlé Lanka (Pvt) Ltd. as additional accused.

The issue before this Court is whether the recently added Accused-Respondents namely, the directors of NestlØ Lanka PLC may be brought within the ambit of these proceedings under the provisions of the Food Act, in light of the aforementioned judgment of the Supreme Court. As per both the original and amended charge sheets, the alleged offence was detected on 28^th June 2011. The original plaint was filed shortly thereafter, on 17 November 2011. However, the amended plaint, which includes the 2nd to 7th Accused being directors of NestlØ Lanka PLC, was filed on 09.08.2012, over more than one year after the date of detection.

Section