The Karnataka High Court has quashed criminal proceedings initiated against Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL) CEO Rohit Jawa in a food safety case, citing the absence of the company itself as an accused in the complaint.

Justice JM Khazi, in an order dated July 3, ruled that prosecuting a managing director without arraigning the company under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSS Act), is legally unsustainable.

“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 observed, while allowing the petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).

The proceedings originated from a June 2023 complaint by a BBMP Food Safety Officer, alleging that a sample of Horlicks biscuits collected from a Bengaluru supermarket contained chlorpyrifos pesticide levels beyond permissible limits under the Food Safety and Standards (Contaminants, Toxins and Residues) Regulations, 2011.

Despite the allegations, the complaint before the special court for economic offences named only Jawa as the accused, seeking to hold him responsible under Sections 51 and 59 of the FSS Act as the person in charge of the company’s operations. The trial court took cognisance of the complaint on June 26, 2023, and issued summons to Jawa.

Challenging this, Jawa—represented by advocate Ahaan Mohan—argued that Section 66 of the FSS Act mandates that a company must be prosecuted before its officers can be held vicariously liable. He further submitted that the trial court’s order lacked proper reasoning and that the safety norms in question were applicable to raw materials, not finished products like biscuits.

Accepting the submissions, the High Court relied on precedents 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, holding that directors or officers cannot be prosecuted without the company being impleaded.

“The presence of the company is necessary in order to hold such person liable,” the Court emphasized.

It also noted that there was no specific allegation that Jawa had direct knowledge or involvement in the alleged offence.

While quashing the proceedings, the Court granted the complainant liberty to file a fresh complaint, this time properly naming Hindustan Unilever Limited as an accused if so advised.

The State of Karnataka was represented by advocate Venkat Satyanarayana.