Safiya Malik

The High Court of Karnataka Single Bench of Justice J.M. Khazi quashed criminal proceedings against an individual serving as Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer of a major corporation. The court declared that the petitioner, who was the sole accused, could not be prosecuted without the company being arraigned as a co-accused. The court allowed the petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code and annulled the cognizance order issued by the Special Court for Economic Offences, Bengaluru. Furthermore, the court granted liberty to the complainant to file a fresh complaint, should they choose to implead the company appropriately.

The petitioner, serving as the Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer of Hindustan Unilever Limited, challenged the proceedings initiated under Sections 51 and 59 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. The complaint was filed by the Food Safety Officer of Hebbal Circle, under the aegis of the State of Karnataka. The allegation arose from a food sample of Horlicks biscuits collected from the premises of respondent No.2, proprietor of Downtown Super Market. The sample was reported to contain pesticide Chlorpyrifos beyond the permissible limit, rendering the product unsafe for human consumption.

Also Read: Supreme Court Confirms Life Term In Intel Engineer Murder Case | Criminal Appeals Dismissed But Sentence Temporarily Suspended | Accused Allowed To Seek Pardon From Karnataka Governor Under Article 161

The case, registered as C.C. No. 57/2023, involved the Special Court for Economic Offences, Bengaluru, taking cognizance based on the said report and issuing summons to the accused, including the petitioner.

The petitioner contended that he could not be held criminally liable as he was not the manufacturer of the food item in question, nor was he directly responsible for the alleged contravention. It was further argued that the regulations invoked—the Food Safety and Standards (Contaminants, Toxins, and Residues) Regulations, 2011—apply only to raw ingredients and not to finished products like the biscuits in question.

Another central contention was that the complaint and the cognizance taken thereon suffered from a fatal flaw: the company was not arrayed as an accused party. The petitioner invoked Section 66 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, which provides that both the company and the person responsible for its operations are liable where an offence has been committed by the company. Therefore, in the absence of the company being prosecuted, any individual action was claimed to be unsustainable.

The petitioner also argued that the cognizance order was rendered in a perfunctory and cyclostyled manner without application of mind or sufficient reasoning. The absence of any reference to the petitioner’s role or specific responsibility in the complaint or order was also pointed out.

In support of these submissions, the petitioner relied on several precedents, including:

• Hindustan Unilever Limited v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No. 715 of 2020 [SLP(Crl) No. 578 of 2020]

• Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd v. Food Inspector and Ors., Criminal Appeal No. 836 of 2010

• Neeraj Shastri and Ors. v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Ors., MANU/JK/0078/2023

• Puneet Sharma v. State of M.P Station House Officer, MANU/MP/2643/2023

• P.V.G Srinivasa Rao v. State of TS, MANU/TL/2692/2022

• Ravinder Kumar Agarwal v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors., MANU/MP/3118/2023

• Reckitt Benckiser (India) Pvt. Ltd and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors., MANU/BH/1188/2017

• Sanjeev Uppal v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors., MANU/AP/1652/2024

The respondents submitted that the Managing Director is responsible for the company’s operations and, hence, is liable. However, they conceded that in the absence of the company being named, the proceedings may be vulnerable. They requested that if the complaint is quashed, liberty may be given to file a fresh complaint by impleading the company.

The court recorded, "petitioner who is the Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer of Hindustan Unilever Ltd has challenged his prosecution on various grounds, including the ground that company is not made party and, in its absence, prosecution against him is not sustainable."

In analysing Section 66 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, the court stated, "every person who at the time the offence was committed was in-charge of, and was responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly."

The court further added, "the presence of the company is necessary in order to hold such person liable. Admittedly, in the present case, the company is not arraigned as an accused and therefore, the petitioner who is sole accused cannot be proceeded against."

Referring to analogous provisions under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the court stated, "when the drawer of the cheque, Managing Director, Joint Managing Director, other Directors and officials who are in charge and responsible for the conduct of the business are prosecuted on the ground that they are vicariously liable for the offence committed by the company, it is mandatory also to arraign the company as accused and in its absence, they are not liable."

The court remarked that the impugned cognizance order was issued "without application of mind, in a cyclostyled and perfunctory manner without assigning any reason" and noted that the petitioner "is neither a manufacturer nor liable in terms of proviso to Section 66 of Act."

Also Read: Orissa High Court Upholds Disability Compensation For Postal Worker Injured In Parcel Bomb Blast | Rejects Delay-Based Denial As Legally Unsustainable | Poor Employee Should Not Be Forced Into Luxury Litigation Over ₹1.83 Lakh

The court allowed the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., holding that the petitioner cannot be prosecuted in the absence of the company.  "Petition filed by the accused No.2 under Section 482 Cr.P.C is hereby allowed."

"The impugned complaint in C.C.No.57/2023 on the file of Special Court for Economic Offences, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 51 and 59 of Food Safety and Standards Act, is hereby quashed."

"However, liberty is reserved to the complainant to file a fresh complaint against the accused, by also arraigning the company as additional accused, if so advised."

"The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the trial Court through e-mail."

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioners: Sri Ahaan Mohan, Advocate

For the Respondents: Sri Venkat Satyanarayan A., High Court Government Pleader; Sri Hajira B.I., Advocate

Case Title: Rohit Jawa v. State of Karnataka & Another

Neutral Citation: 2025: KHC:23989

Case Number: CRL.P No. 8536 of 2023

Bench: Justice J.M. Khazi