Karnataka High Court Quashes Criminal Case Against MD Of Hindustan Unilever Over Alleged 'Unsafe' Horlicks Biscuit Sample
The Karnataka High Court has quashed a criminal case registered against Rohit Jawa, Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer of Hindustan Unilever Ltd under Food Safety and Standards Act, after certain allegedly "unsafe" samples of Horlicks biscuits were purportedly recovered from a person's house. Section 51 states the Penalty for Substandard food as per which any person who whether...
The Karnataka High Court has quashed a criminal case registered against Rohit Jawa, Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer of Hindustan Unilever Ltd under Food Safety and Standards Act, after certain allegedly "unsafe" samples of Horlicks biscuits were purportedly recovered from a person's house.
Section 51 states the Penalty for Substandard food as per which any person who whether by himself or by any other person on his behalf manufactures for sale or stores or sells or distributes or imports any article of food for human consumption which is sub-standard, shall be liable to a penalty which may extend to Rs 5 Lakh.
Section 59 states the punishment for unsafe food for any person who, whether by himself or by any other person on his behalf, manufactures for sale or stores or sells or distributes or imports any article of food for human consumption which is unsafe.
Justice J M Khazi quashed the proceedings observing:
"In the Food, Safety and Standards Act also, when every person who at the time the offence was committed was incharge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of business of the company, then the company as well as such person 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 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. For this reason, the criminal proceedings against the accused are liable to be quashed. However, the complainant is at liberty to file a fresh complaint by implicating the company also and thereafter proceed further and accordingly.”
The petitioner had approached the court after the trial court took cognizance of the complaint. It was alleged that the Food Safety Officer, Hebbal Circle has filed the complaint alleging that in respect of food supply of Horlicks biscuits purportedly collected from the premises of an individual (respondent No.2), the sample was found unsafe and it contained pesticide Chloropyrifos beyond the specified limits and as such substandard and unsafe for human consumption.
The petitioner seeking quashing of the complaint 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. Without due application of mind the trial Judge has passed the order taking cognizance, without noticing that petitioner is neither a manufacturer nor liable in terms of proviso to 66 of Act, the petitioner said.
Further, the company is not a party. In the absence of the company, the petitioner is not liable, he said.
Opposing the petition the respondents submitted that the Managing Director is in charge and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company. However, in the absence of the company, the Managing Director cannot be proceeded with and in the event of quashing the proceedings, liberty may be reserved to file a fresh petition by impleading the company.
The bench noted that in the Food, Safety and Standards Act, when every person who at the time the offence was committed was in-charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of business of the company, then the company as well as such person shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished.
Accordingly it allowed the petition and quashed the criminal proceedings against Jawa.
Case Title: Rohit Jawa AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Appearance: Advocate Ahaan Mohan for Petitioner.
HCGP Venkat Satyanarayana A for R1.
Advocate Haira B I for R2.
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 235
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8536 OF 2023