Karnataka High Court: While considering a petition filed by Rohit Jiwa (petitioner), Managing Director & CEO of Hindustan Unilever Ltd., seeking quashment of criminal proceedings initiated against him concerning discovery of pesticide in a sample of Horlicks biscuits; the Bench of J.M. Khazi, J., noted that in the instant case, Hindustan Unilever Ltd., was not arraigned as an accused and therefore, Rohit Jiwa, who was the sole accused, could not be proceeded against. Therefore, impugned initiation of proceedings against the petitioner must be set aside.
A sample of Horlicks biscuits purportedly collected from the premises of Food Safety Officer, Hebbal Circle, was found unsafe for containing pesticide Chloropyrifos beyond the specified limits and as such was deemed to be substandard and unsafe for human consumption. Consequently, the respondents filed a complaint, and proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. The Special Court for economic offences via the impugned order, took cognizance for the offences punishable and Sections 51 and 59 of Food and Safety Standards Act, 2006 (2006 Act).
The petitioner contended that the tests prescribed under Food, Safety and Standards (Contaminants, Toxins and Residues) Regulations, 2011 are applicable only to raw ingredients and not finished products. It was submitted that the Special Court noticing that petitioner is neither a manufacturer nor liable in terms of proviso to Section 66 of 2006 Act. The petitioner further contended that the impugned order was passed without application of mind, in a perfunctory manner without assigning any reason. Furthermore, the company i.e., Hindustan Unilever Ltd., was not made a party to the suit.
Per contra, the respondents contended that Managing Director is incharge and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company. However, in the absence of the company, the Managing Director cannot be proceeded and in the event of quashing the proceedings, liberty may be reserved to file fresh petition by impleading the company.
Perusing the matter, the Court pointed out that Section 66 of the 2006 which deals with offences by companies, is similar to Section 141 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 which also deals with dishonour of cheques issued for and on behalf of the company and when officials who are incharge 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. The Court stated that it is mandatory also to arraign the company as accused and in its absence, the officials incharge are not liable.
As per the scheme of the 2006 Act, when every person who at the time of the commission of the offence, was incharge of and responsible for the conduct of business of the company, then the company as well as such person incharge shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished. Therefore, the presence of the company is necessary in order to hold person incharge liable.
Hence, the Court quashed the impugned order and with it the proceedings the initiated against Rohit Jiwa. However, liberty was reserved to the complainant to file a fresh complaint against Rohit Jiwa by also arraigning Hindustan Unilever Ltd., as additional accused, if so advised.
[Rohit Jiwa v. State of Karnataka, 2025 SCC OnLine Kar 10091, decided on 3-7-2025]
*Order by Justice J.M. Khazi
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Ahaan Mohan, Advocate for petitioner
Venkat Satyanarayan. A, HCGP for R 1; Hajira. B.I, Advocate for R 2