The Karnataka High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against Prashant Kumar Joshi, a former General Manager (Legal) associated with Dorling Kindersley (India) Pvt. Ltd., observing that the complaint did not establish his responsibility for the company’s day-to-day affairs and the company itself had not been made an accused. The judgment was delivered by Justice H.P. Sandesh on September 11, 2026.
Background
The proceedings arose from an inspection conducted on January 27, 2012, at the premises of Surya Infotainment Products Pvt. Ltd. A Business Head was allegedly found in possession of a Pearson-published Engineering Drawing textbook. According to the complaint, the package did not carry details such as the manufacturer’s name and address, maximum retail price, manufacturing or packing date, net contents, and consumer-care contact information.
The complaint invoked provisions of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 and the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011. Joshi approached the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC, seeking quashing of the proceedings.
Justice Sandesh noted that Joshi had been described in the complaint as General Manager (Legal), but there was no specific allegation that he was in charge of or responsible for the company’s day-to-day affairs. The Court also noted that there was no material showing that he had been nominated under Section 49 of the Legal Metrology Act as the person responsible for compliance.
The Court further pointed out that the company itself had not been arrayed as an accused. Referring to Section 49 of the Legal Metrology Act and the principles discussed in Aneeta Hada v. M/s Godfather Travels and Tours Pvt. Ltd. and Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, the Court examined whether proceedings could continue against the individual employee in these circumstances.
"The complaint does not state that this petitioner was in charge of the affairs of the company or that he had been nominated under Section 49 of the Act. In such circumstances, continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of process."
The Karnataka High Court held that the complaint lacked the necessary averments connecting Joshi with responsibility for the company’s affairs and that the company had not been made an accused.
Finding grounds to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC, the Court allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings initiated against him in C.C. No.17160/2012.
Case Details
- Case Title: Prashant Kumar Joshi v. State of Karnataka
- Case Number: Criminal Petition No. 6547 of 2019
- Judge: Justice H.P. Sandesh
- Decision Date: September 11, 2026
