‘Pesticide in biscuit sample': Karnataka HC quashes criminal proceedings against Hindustan Unilever CEO
The court said, '…in the present case, the company is not arraigned as an accused, and therefore the petitioner, who is the sole accused, cannot be proceeded against.' It, however, stated that a fresh complaint could be filed by implicating the company too, as the initial complaint did not name it.
The grievance in this regard was filed by a food safety officer in 2023, under provisions of the Food and Safety Standards Act, based on the discovery that a sample of Horlicks biscuits from a supermarket in Bengaluru contained the pesticide Chlorpyrifos beyond the safe limits. In India, Horlicks is owned by Unilever.
Jawa's counsel argued that the tests prescribed under the Food Safety and Standards (Contaminants, Toxins and Residues) Regulations were not applicable to finished products such as biscuits. It was also pointed out that the company (Hindustan Unilever) was not named in the case, and as per the law, the CEO was not the manufacturer. Hence, the trial judge should not have taken cognizance of the matter.
On the other hand, the opposing government counsel argued that the MD was responsible for the company's business. He added that in the event that the proceedings are quashed because the company was not named as an accused in the complaint, liberty ought to be granted to file a fresh petition and implead the company.
Allowing the petitioner to do so, the high court subsequently stated, '…the criminal proceedings against the accused are liable to be quashed…the complainant is at liberty to file a fresh complaint by implicating the company also, and thereafter proceed further.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
42 minutes ago
- Indian Express
ED not a drone to attack at will on any criminal activity: Madras HC
The Madras High Court has observed that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) was not a 'drone' to attack at will, and nor was it a 'super cop' to investigate anything and everything which comes to its notice. A division bench of Justice M S Ramesh and Justice V Lakshminarayanan made the observations while hearing the plea by city-based RKM Powergen Private Ltd challenging the ED seizing Rs 901 crore of its fixed deposits in connection with a PMLA case. The ED action came on the basis of an FIR registered by the CBI in 2014 over the allocation of coal blocks for a power plant in Chhattisgarh earlier. The agency filed a closure report in 2017 saying it found no irregularities in the allocation of coal blocks. The CBI court did not agree with the closure report and wanted further probe in some aspects. In 2023, CBI filed a supplementary final report, which found that there were sufficient incriminating materials warranting prosecution under sections of IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act. Later, the ED conducted searches in the premises of directors and holding companies associated with RKMP. On January 31,2025 a freezing order was passed wherein the fixed deposit to the tune of Rs 901 crore was frozen by the ED. The company challenged the said order and the court set it aside. The bench said that a careful perusal of Section 66(2) of PMLA points out that if during the course of investigation, the ED comes across violations of other provisions of law, then it cannot assume the role of investigating those offences also. It is to inform the appropriate agency, which is empowered by law to investigate that offence. If that agency, on the intimation from the ED, commences investigation and registers a complaint, then certainly the ED can investigate into those aspects also, provided there are 'proceeds of crime'. 'In case, the investigating agency does not find any case with respect to the aspects pointed out by the ED, then the ED cannot suo motu proceed with the investigation and assume powers. The essential ingredient for the ED to seize jurisdiction is the presence of a predicate offence. It is like a limpet mine attached to a ship. If there is no ship, the limpet cannot work. The ship is the predicate offence and 'proceeds of crime'. The ED is not a loitering munition or drone to attack at will on any criminal activity,' the bench said. It further said that a perusal of the papers show that no complaint had been lodged with respect to any of the aforesaid alleged criminal activities. 'The ED is not a super cop to investigate anything and everything which comes to its notice.' There should be a 'criminal activity' which attracts the schedule to PMLA, and on account of such criminal activity, there should have been proceeds of crime, it said
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
42 minutes ago
- Business Standard
ED not a drone to attack at will on any criminal activity, says Madras HC
The Madras High Court has observed that the ED was not a "drone" to attack at will, and nor was it a "super cop" to investigate anything and everything which comes to its notice. A division bench of Justice M S Ramesh and Justice V Lakshminarayanan made the observations while hearing the plea by city-based RKM Powergen Private Ltd challenging the Enforcement Directorate (ED) seizing ₹901 crore of its fixed deposits in connection with a PMLA case. The ED action came on the basis of an FIR registered by the CBI in 2014 over the allocation of coal blocks for a power plant in Chhattisgarh earlier. The agency filed a closure report in 2017 saying it found no irregularities in the allocation of coal blocks. The CBI court did not agree with the closure report and wanted further probe in some aspects. In 2023, CBI filed a supplementary final report, which found that there were sufficient incriminating materials warranting prosecution under sections of IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act. Later, the ED conducted searches in the premises of directors and holding companies associated with RKMP. On January 31,2025 a freezing order was passed wherein the fixed deposit to the tune of Rs 901 crore was frozen by the ED. The company challenged the said order and the court set it aside. The bench said that a careful perusal of Section 66(2) of PMLA points out that if during the course of investigation, the ED comes across violations of other provisions of law, then it cannot assume the role of investigating those offences also. It is to inform the appropriate agency, which is empowered by law to investigate that offence. If that agency, on the intimation from the ED, commences investigation and registers a complaint, then certainly the ED can investigate into those aspects also, provided there are "proceeds of crime". "In case, the investigating agency does not find any case with respect to the aspects pointed out by the ED, then the ED cannot suo motu proceed with the investigation and assume powers. The essential ingredient for the ED to seize jurisdiction is the presence of a predicate offence. It is like a limpet mine attached to a ship. If there is no ship, the limpet cannot work. The ship is the predicate offence and "proceeds of crime". The ED is not a loitering munition or drone to attack at will on any criminal activity," the bench said. It further said that a perusal of the papers show that no complaint had been lodged with respect to any of the aforesaid alleged criminal activities. "The ED is not a super cop to investigate anything and everything which comes to its notice." There should be a "criminal activity" which attracts the schedule to PMLA, and on account of such criminal activity, there should have been proceeds of crime, it said.
The Hindu
42 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Delhi High Court asks authorities to decide former NIA judge's plea for arms licence
The Delhi High Court has asked authorities to decide a plea of a former special judge of the National Investigation Agency (NIA) seeking an arms licence. Citing personal security reasons, the judge sought direction to the Delhi Government and police to decide his application for issuance of the arms licence. Justice Sachin Datta, while disposing of the petition, noted that the counsel for the authorities have submitted that the decision on the November 2023 application will be taken and the petitioner would be informed. "The above redresses the immediate grievance of the petitioner," the Court noted in its May 30 order. UGC's anti-ragging system has utterly failed, says Delhi High Court It also said if the petitioner is aggrieved with the decision taken by the authorities, he would be at liberty to take appropriate remedies under law. According to the plea, the judge served as a special NIA judge in Tripura and was currently on deputation in Delhi. He said he applied for an arms licence in November 2023 but no action was taken by the Delhi Police licence authority. Delhi High Court quashes FIRs against Indian nationals for housing Tablighi Jamaat attendees during COVID-19 It said since his family is permanently stationed in Delhi, he applied for an arms licence to ensure safety so that he is free from any "external criminal threats and potential non-interference in free movement and is able to defend himself." "It is shocking that the petitioner and his family are living with no security and this potentialises both direct and indirect threats to their personal safety and security," the plea submitted.
