The Karnataka High Court has quashed criminal proceedings initiated against Rohit Jawa, the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL), in a food safety case related to pesticide contamination in Horlicks biscuits. The Court observed that prosecution against the company official alone, without naming the company as an accused, was legally untenable.

Facts

The criminal case had its origins in a complaint filed in June 2023, by a Food Safety Officer from the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP). The complaint alleged that a sample of Horlicks biscuits collected from Downtown Super Market in Bengaluru contained levels of chlorpyrifos, a pesticide, in excess of permissible limits as defined under the Food Safety and Standards (Contaminants, Toxins and Residues) Regulations, 2011.

Following this, the special court for economic offences took cognisance of the complaint on June 26, 2023, and issued summons to Rohit Jawa. However, the complaint had failed to indict Hindustan Unilever Limited—the company that manufactured the biscuits—as an accused party.

Jawa, approached the High Court seeking to quash the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). His legal team argued that the proceedings were fundamentally flawed in law. They submitted that under Section 66 of the Food Safety and Standards Act,(FSS) 2006, no individual officer or director can be held vicariously liable for a violation unless the company itself is prosecuted.

It was also contended that the applicable food safety standards pertained to raw materials and not finished products like biscuits, and that the trial court's decision lacked proper judicial reasoning and was “mechanical”.

Justice J.M. Khazi of the Karnataka High Court, concurred with Jawa’s arguments. “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 stated. It further ruled that the prosecution could not proceed against the company’s managing director in isolation.

Referring to Section 66 of the FSS Act, the Court highlighted that an individual officer can only be held accountable when the company itself is included in the prosecution. Citing precedent from prior cases—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—the Court reaffirmed the principle that “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.”

Additionally, the Court observed that there was no specific allegation that Rohit Jawa had any direct involvement or personal knowledge of the alleged contamination incident. On these grounds, the criminal case was quashed.

However, the Court left the door open for future legal action, stating, “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 order stated.

The State of Karnataka was represented by Advocate Venkat Satyanarayana, while Advocate Hajira B.I appeared for another respondent.

Case Title: Rohit Jawa vs. State of Karnataka
Criminal Petition No.: 8536 of 2023
Petitioner’s Counsel: Advocate Ahaan Mohan
Respondents’ Counsel: Advocate Venkat Satyanarayan (for R1); Advocate Hajira B.I, For R2