‘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
Hans India
3 hours ago
- Hans India
Stampede: Govt revokes suspension of four police officers
Bengaluru: The government on Monday revoked the suspension of four police officers, including the then Bengaluru Police Commissioner B Dayananda, who were suspended in connection with the June 4 stampede outside the Chinnaswamy Stadium here, which left 11 people dead. However, the suspension of Vikash Kumar Vikash - Inspector General of Police, stands as proceedings related to his case are currently underway in the Karnataka High Court, official sources said. According to the government order, the suspension has been revoked as both the Judicial Commission and Magisterial committee have completed their inquiry into the stampede incident and submitted their reports to the government, and the officers have also submitted representations requesting to revoke their suspension. The officials whose suspensions have been revoked are IPS officers: B Dayananda - Additional Director General of Police and Shekar H Tekkannavar - Superintendent of Police. Also, two Karnataka State Police Service officers: C Balakrishna - Deputy SP and A K Girish - Police Inspector. On July 1, the central administrative tribunal (CAT) Bengaluru bench quashed the suspension of Vikash, challenging which, the state government had moved the High Court. The stampede occurred on June 4 evening outside the Chinnaswamy stadium in Bengaluru, where a large number of people thronged to participate in the RCB team's IPL victory celebrations.
Time of India
6 hours ago
- Time of India
HC upholds DU prof's removal after findings in assault case
New Delhi: Delhi High Court has upheld the removal of a Delhi University professor who challenged the adverse findings of an internal complaints committee (ICC) that found multiple allegations of sexual harassment against him. The ICC had also highlighted that virtual interactions between a teacher and students on messaging apps or social media sites fall within the definition of "workplace" under the POSH Act, 2013. "Teachers shape the careers of young aspiring students for a better future. The act of sexual harassment by these very teachers, who are considered as our guides and mentors, against young female students who have just attained majority, has a deleterious effect on the psyche of such students," Justice Subramanium Prasad noted in a recent order, dismissing the plea of Dr Amit Kumar, challenging his compulsory retirement by DU. You Can Also Check: Delhi AQI | Weather in Delhi | Bank Holidays in Delhi | Public Holidays in Delhi Kumar was with the department of political science at DU's Bharti College where multiple complaints were filed by students accusing him of sexual harassment. The court noted that all the complaints pertained to the sexual innuendoes/advances by Kumar in Facebook Messenger chats and WhatsApp chats sent by him to the complainants. "This court has perused the content of these messages and the transcript of the tele-conversation which were submitted by the complainants as evidence. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Egypt: Unsold Sofas Prices May Surprise You (Prices May Surprise You) Sofas | Search Ads Search Now Undo Given the obscene and profane nature of these messages, the same are not being reproduced," the court said. The complaints were made in Feb 2018, shortly after a video of students confronting the professor about his conduct became public and was circulated. It sparked student protests and demands for an inquiry, prompting the university to set up an ICC. While Kumar argued that there were several irregularities and he was not given a fair hearing by the ICC and DU authorities, the high court found no violation of rules in how the ICC was constituted or how the inquiry was conducted. "The complaint of violation of procedural provision should be examined from the point of view of prejudice, viz., whether such violation has prejudiced the delinquent officer/employee in defending himself properly and effectively," it said.
United News of India
7 hours ago
- United News of India
Cash recovery alone not ground for impeachment, Kapil Sibal argues in SC, in defence of Justice Yashwant Varma
New Delhi, July 28 (UNI) The Supreme Court today heard arguments in a sensitive case involving a sitting High Court judge, with Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal asserting that the recovery of unaccounted cash from the outhouse of a judge cannot, by itself, constitute 'misconduct' or 'proved incapacity', the only grounds for removal under Article 124(4) of the Constitution. A Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice A.G. Masih was hearing a writ petition filed by Justice Yashwant Varma, who has challenged the findings of an in-house inquiry committee that indicted him, as well as a recommendation made by then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna to the President and Prime Minister, seeking initiation of impeachment proceedings. Sibal, appearing on behalf of Justice Varma, questioned the legal basis of the recommendation. 'The Judges (Inquiry) Act governs the procedure for removal of judges. "A mere finding of cash in the outhouse, without a clear link to misconduct or incapacity, cannot justify impeachment,' he submitted. He added, 'If cash is found in the outhouse, what specific behaviour of the judge is being impugned? There is no allegation of misconduct, much less 'proved misbehaviour' as required by the Constitution.' Justice Datta, however, pointed out that such conduct could amount to 'misbehaviour' under the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct. Sibal acknowledged the possibility but countered that even then, it may not rise to the level necessary to warrant removal from office. The Bench also noted that Justice Varma had not disputed the incident of fire at the premises or the subsequent cash recovery. In response, Sibal stressed that no investigative body or the in-house panel could conclusively determine the ownership of the cash, and no inference should be drawn against the judge without substantive proof. At the core of Sibal's argument was the contention that the Chief Justice of India has no constitutional authority to initiate or recommend impeachment proceedings. 'It is for the Members of Parliament to move such a motion if they are convinced that a judge's conduct warrants removal,' he said. 'The President and Prime Minister are completely alien to this process,' he emphasized. When Justice Datta pointed out that the committee's findings are not considered as formal 'evidence' under law, Sibal replied, 'Yet those findings became the basis for the CJI's communication recommending removal. Once that happens, what is Parliament expected to do other than follow it?' Justice Datta clarified that any removal must follow the due process laid out under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, which requires an inquiry by a three-judge committee before any motion in Parliament. The Court has scheduled the next hearing in the matter for Wednesday, indicating that it will continue to examine both procedural and constitutional aspects of the case. UNI SNG RN
