-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:23989
CRL.P No. 8536 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8536 OF 2023
(482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
MR. ROHIT JAWA
SON OF VED PRAKASH JAWA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
WORKING AS MANAGING DIRECTOR
HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LIMITED
UNILEVER HOUSE, B.D. SAWANT MARG
CHAKALA, ANDHERI(E)
MUMBAI-400099, MAHARASHTA
REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI.AHAAN MOHAN, ADVOCATE)
Digitally AND:
signed by
REKHA R
Location: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
High Court
of Karnataka THROUGH FOOD SAFETY OFFICER
HEBBALA CIRCLE, BBMP NORTH ZONE
PUBLIC HEALTH INSTITUTE PREMISES
SHESHADRI ROAD, BENGALURU-560001
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU-560001.
2. MR. MOHAMMED GHOUSE
SON OF ABDUL HAMEED,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:23989
CRL.P No. 8536 of 2023
HC-KAR
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
PROPRIETOR
DOWNTOWN SUPER MARKET
19TH MAIN, 44TH CROSS, KALYANA NAGARA POST,
DR. ABDUL KALAM ROAD, HBR LAYOUT,
HEBBALA CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560043.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.VENKAT SATYANARAYAN.A, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI.HAJIRA.B.I, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC BY THE ADVOCATE
FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO 1) SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 26.06.2023 (ANNEXURE-A) PASSED
BY THE LEARNED PRESIDING OFFICE SPECIAL COURT FOR
ECONOMIC OFFENCES, BENGALURU, TAKING COGNIZANCE OF
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 51 AND 59 OF THE FOOD SAFETY
AND STANDARDS ACT, 2006 AND ISSUING SUMMONSES TO
THE ACCUSED INCLUDING THE PETITIONER AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI
ORAL ORDER
In this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C,
petitioner who is arraigned as accused No.2 has sought
for quashing criminal proceedings initiated against him in
C.C.No.57/2023 on the file of Spl.Court for economic
offences and set aside the impugned order dated
26.06.2023, taking cognizance for the offences
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:23989
CRL.P No. 8536 of 2023
HC-KAR
punishable and Sections 51 and 59 of Food and Safety
Standards Act, 2006.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to by their ranks before the trial Court.
3. In support of the petition, petitioner has
contended that he is the Managing Director and Chief
Executive Officer of Hindustan Unilever Ltd. Respondent
No.1 who is 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 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 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
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:23989
CRL.P No. 8536 of 2023
HC-KAR
taking cognizance and without noticing that petitioner is
neither a manufacturer nor liable in terms of proviso to
66 of Act.
3.1 The impugned order is passed without
application of mind, in a cyclostyled and perfunctory
manner without assigning any reason. The company is
not a party. In the absence of the company, petitioner is
not liable and hence the petition.
4. On the other hand, learned High Court
Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and learned
counsel for respondent No.2 submitted 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.
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:23989
CRL.P No. 8536 of 2023
HC-KAR
5. Heard arguments and perused the record.
6. Thus, 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.
7. In support of his arguments, learned counsel
for petitioner has relied upon the following decisions:
(i) Hindustan Unilever Limited Vs. The State of
1
Madhya Pradesh (Hindustan Unilever Ltd)
(ii) Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd Vs. Food
Inspector and Ors. (Pepsico India
2
Holdings)
(iii) Neeraj Shastri and Ors. Vs. State of Jammu
3
and Kashmir and Ors. (Neeraj Shastri)
(iv) Puneet Sharma Vs. State of M.P Station
4
House Officer (Puneet Sharma)
(v) P.V.G Srinivasa Rao Vs. State of TS (P.V.G.
5
Srinivasa Rao)
1
Crl.A.No.715/2020[SLP(Crl)No.578/2020 dt: 05.11.2020]
2
Crl.A.No.836/2010 dt: 18.11.2010]
3
MANU/JK/0078/2023 [CRMC No.291/2016 Dt: 16.02.2023]
4
MANU/MP/2643/2023 [Misc.Crl.Case No.5958/2021 Dt:14.09.2023]
5
MANU/TL/2692/2022 [Crl.P.No.4422/2017 Dt:19.09.2022]
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:23989
CRL.P No. 8536 of 2023
HC-KAR
(vi) Ravinder Kumar Agarwal Vs. The State of
Madhya Pradesh and Ors. (Ravinder Kumar
6
Agarwal)
(vii) Reckitt Benckiser (India) Pvt.Ltd and Ors. Vs.
The State of Bihar and Ors. (Reckitt
7
Benckiser)
(viii) Sanjeev Uppal Vs. The State of Andhra
8
Pradesh and Ors. (Sanjeev Uppal)
8. In the above decisions, the prosecution
against the accused came to be quashed on the ground
that company is not made a party.
9. At this stage it is relevant to refer to Section 66
of the Food, Safety and Standards Act, 2006 which deals
with offences by companies. It reads as follows:
"66. Offences by companies
(1) Where an offence under this Act which has been
committed by a company, 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:
6
MANU/MP/3118/2023 [Misc.Crl.Case No.27698/2019 Dt:17.03.2023]
7
MANU/BH/1188/2017 [Crl.Misc.Nos.24952 & 36986/2017 Dt:08.12.2017]
8
MANU/AP/1652/2024 [Crl.P.No.8213/2018 Dt:04.10.2024]
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:23989
CRL.P No. 8536 of 2023
HC-KAR
PROVIDED that where a company has different
establishments or branches or different units in any
establishment or branch, the concerned Head or the
person in-charge of such establishment, branch, unit
nominated by the company as responsible for food
safety shall be liable for contravention in respect of such
establishment, branch or unit:
PROVIDED FURTHER that nothing contained in this sub-
Section shall render any such person liable to any
punishment provided in this Act, if he proves that the
offence was committed without his knowledge or that he
exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of
such offence.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-
section (1), where an offence under this Act has been
committed by a company and it is proved that the
offence has been committed with the consent or
connivance of or is attributable to any neglect on the
part of, any director, manager, secretary or other officer
of the company, such director, manager, secretary or
other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of that
offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and
punished accordingly."
10. This provision is similar to Section 141 of
Negotiable Instruments Act which also deals with
dishonour of cheques issued for and on behalf of the
company and when the drawer of the cheque, Managing
Director, Joint Managing Director, other Directors and
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:23989
CRL.P No. 8536 of 2023
HC-KAR
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, it is mandatory also to arraign the company as
accused and in its absence, they are not liable.
11. 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.
12. 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
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:23989
CRL.P No. 8536 of 2023
HC-KAR
quashed. However, the complainant is at liberty to file
fresh complaint by implicating the company also and
thereafter proceed further and accordingly, the following:
ORDER
(i) Petition filed by the accused No.2 under
Section 482 Cr.P.C is hereby allowed.
(ii) 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.
(iii) 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.
(iv) The Registry is directed to send a copy of
this order to the trial Court through e-mail.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:23989
CRL.P No. 8536 of 2023
HC-KAR
In view of disposal of the petition, pending
application/s, if any, stands disposed off, as no separate
order is required.
Sd/-
(J.M.KHAZI)
JUDGE
RR
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50
