A Managing Director cannot be prosecuted under the Food Safety Act without the company being a party to the proceedings, as vicarious liability requires both to be present in court.

ORDER :

(J.M. KHAZI, J.)

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 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 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. 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 Madhya Pradesh (Hindustan Unilever Ltd), Crl.A.No.715/2020[SLP(Crl)No.578/2020 dt: 05.11.2020]

(ii) Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd Vs. Food Inspector and Ors. (Pepsico India Holdings), Crl.A.No.836/2010 dt: 18.11.2010].

(iii) Neeraj Shastri and Ors. Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Ors. (Neeraj Shastri), MANU/JK/0078/2023 [CRMC No.291/2016 Dt: 16.02.2023].

(iv) Puneet Sharma Vs. State of M.P Station House Officer (Puneet Sharma), MANU/MP/2643/2023 [Misc.Crl.Case No.5958/2021 Dt:14.09.2023].

(v) P.V.G Srinivasa Rao Vs. State of TS (P.V.G. Srinivasa Rao), MANU/TL/2692/2022 [Crl.P.No.4422/2017 Dt:19.09.2022].

(vi) Ravinder Kumar Agarwal Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. (Ravinder Kumar Agarwal), MANU/MP/3118/2023 [Misc.Crl.Case No.27698/2019 Dt:17.03.2023]

(vii) Reckitt Benckiser (India) Pvt.Ltd and Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar and Ors. (Reckitt Benckiser), MANU/BH/1188/2017 [Crl.Misc.Nos.24952 & 36986/2017 Dt:08.12.2017]

(viii) Sanjeev Uppal Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. (Sanjeev Uppal), MANU/AP/1652/2024 [Crl.P.No.8213/2018 Dt:04.10.2024]

8. In the above decisions, the prosecution against the accused came to be quashed on t