Karnataka High Court quashes criminal case against Pearson's former general manager Prashant Joshi

The Karnataka High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against Prashant Kumar Joshi, the former General Manager (Legal) of Pearson Education's Indian publishing arm, Dorling Kindersley (India) Pvt. Ltd., in a case involving alleged violations of the Legal Metrology Act. Justice H.P. Sandesh ruled that the complaint lacked specific allegations that Joshi was in charge of the company's affairs, and the company itself was not arrayed as an accused, making the prosecution an abuse of process.

The inspection that sparked the case

The case originated from an inspection conducted on 27 January 2012 by an Inspector of Legal Metrology at the premises of Surya Infotainment Products Pvt. Ltd., a distributor. The inspector found the company's Business Head, K.M. Paniraj, in possession of a pre-packed "Pearson published Engineering Drawing Textbook" . According to the complaint, the package did not carry mandatory declarations such as the manufacturer's name and full address, maximum retail price, manufacturing or packing month and year, net contents, and consumer care contact details.

The complaint alleged that this violated Section 18 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 read with Rule 18(1) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011, punishable under Section 36 of the Act. A private complaint under Section 200 CrPC was filed against the company's Managing Director (accused No.1) and Joshi (accused No.2) in his capacity as General Manager (Legal). The magistrate took cognizance, leading Joshi to seek quashing.

Arguments before the High Court

Joshi's counsel contended that the company had not been arrayed as an accused, and the complaint contained no averment that Joshi was in charge of or responsible for the company's business. He argued that Joshi was a normal employee, not a nominated person under Section 49 of the Legal Metrology Act. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court's rulings in Aneeta Hada v. Godfather Travels and Tours and Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate , which held that if the company is not made a party, proceedings against its officers are invalid.

The State, represented by the High Court Government Pleader, argued that the inspection clearly showed a violation, and the complaint alleged that Joshi and the Managing Director were "manufacturer-cum-publisher" of the package, thus liable.

Section 49 and the need for specific allegations

Justice Sandesh examined Section 49 of the Legal Metrology Act, which creates vicarious liability for company officers. The provision requires either a nominated person responsible for the company's business or, if no person is nominated, every person who was in charge of and responsible for the company's conduct at the time of the offence. The court noted that the complaint did not specify that Joshi was in charge of the company's affairs or that he had been nominated under Section 49.

The court observed that merely designating Joshi as "General Manager (Legal)" was insufficient to fix criminal liability. The company itself was not made an accused, violating the principles laid down in Aneeta Hada and Pepsi Foods . The court found that the proceedings against Joshi were an abuse of the court's process.

Key Observations

Justice Sandesh made several pivotal observations:

"Nothing is stated in the complaint that this petitioner was in charge of the affairs of the company and he being shown as General Manager (Legal), the question of initiating the criminal prosecution against this petitioner is nothing but an abuse of process , which amounts to miscarriage of justice ."

"Having considered the provisions of Section 49 of the Act 2009, it is very clear that if any offence under this Act has been committed by a company, the person who has been nominated... shall be deemed to be guilty ... Where no person has been nominated, every person who at the time the offence was in charge of, and was responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business of the company and also the company shall be deemed to be guilty ."

"If the proceedings is continued, it is nothing but an abuse of process ."

Decision and implications

The petition was allowed. The High Court quashed the cognizance order dated 26 July 2012 and the complaint in C.C. No. 17160/2012 pending before the LVI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru. The ruling reinforces that criminal proceedings against company officers must be supported by specific allegations linking them to the company's conduct, and the company itself must be made a party where statutory provisions like Section 49 require it. The decision provides clarity for in-house legal professionals and other employees who may be targeted in regulatory prosecutions without proper averments.