The Karnataka High Court recently quashed criminal proceedings against Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL) CEO Rohit Jawa in a food safety case involving allegations of pesticide contamination in Horlicks biscuits [Rohit Jawa Vs State of Karnataka]..The Court held that the prosecution was unsustainable in the absence of the company being arraigned as an accused.In an order passed on July 3, Justice JM Khazi held that the company’s managing director could not be prosecuted individually under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSS Act) without impleading the company.“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,” the Court said..The proceedings arose from a complaint filed by a BBMP Food Safety Officer in June 2023, alleging that a sample of Horlicks biscuits collected from Downtown Super Market in Bengaluru contained levels of the pesticide chlorpyrifos beyond permissible limits under the Food Safety and Standards (Contaminants, Toxins and Residues) Regulations, 2011.The complaint filed before the special court for economic offences did not name Hindustan Unilever Limited as an accused but sought to prosecute Jawa under Sections 51 and 59 of the FSS Act on the ground that he was the person responsible for the company’s operations.On June 26, 2023, the trial court took cognisance and issued summons to Jawa..Jawa, represented by advocate Ahaan Mohan, challenged the proceedings before the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, arguing that Section 66 of the FSS Act mandates prosecution of the company itself before any of its officers can be held vicariously liable.It was submitted that the complaint was legally flawed and that the applicable safety standards applied to raw ingredients and not to finished products like biscuits. The trial court’s cognisance order was also assailed as mechanical and passed without due reasoning..The Court agreed with Jawa’s contention and relied on a series of decisions, including Hindustan Unilever Ltd v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Pepsico India Holdings Pvt Ltd v. Food Inspector, and Reckitt Benckiser (India) Pvt Ltd v. State of Bihar, to hold that a director or officer cannot be prosecuted unless the company itself is made a party.“The presence of the company is necessary in order to hold such person liable. For this reason, the criminal proceedings against the accused are liable to be quashed,” the Court said, referring to Section 66 of the FSS Act.The Court noted that there was no allegation that Jawa had direct involvement or knowledge of the alleged violation..While allowing the petition, the Court granted liberty to the complainant to file a fresh complaint by arraigning Hindustan Unilever Limited as an accused.“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 Court directed..State of Karnataka was represented by Advocate Venkat Satyanarayana..[Read Judgment]
