Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, including a company and its erstwhile directors, challenged an order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli, which dismissed their revision against the issuance of process by the Chief Judicial Magistrate for offences under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. The complaint alleged that the company's product, 'Milkana Milk Food,' was substandard. The court examined whether the directors could be vicariously liable without specific allegations. The High Court held that the complaint did not contain any averment that the directors were in charge of and responsible for the business at the relevant time, which is essential for vicarious liability. The court quashed the process against the directors but allowed the proceedings to continue against the company. The decision emphasizes strict construction of penal statutes and the need for specific allegations against directors.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Vicarious Liability - Directors' Liability - Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, Sections 26(2)(i), 59, 63, 31(1) - The court held that vicarious liability of directors for offences under the FSS Act cannot be presumed; there must be specific averments that the director was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business at the time of the offence. The complaint lacked such averments, and the process issued against the petitioners was quashed. (Paras 1-32)
B) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of Process - Abuse of Process - Constitution of India, Article 227 - The High Court exercised its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 to quash the order of the Sessions Judge dismissing the revision against the issuance of process, as the process was without legal basis and amounted to an abuse of process. (Paras 1-32)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the directors of a company can be summoned for offences under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 without specific allegations of their involvement or responsibility.
Final Decision
The petition is partly allowed. The order dated 20th August 2022 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli, and the order of issuance of process by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangli, are quashed and set aside insofar as they relate to petitioner Nos.1 to 4 (directors). The proceedings against petitioner No.5 (company) may continue.
Law Points
- Vicarious liability
- strict construction of penal statutes
- requirement of specific averments against directors
- Section 26(2)(i) FSS Act
- Section 59 FSS Act
- Section 63 FSS Act
- Section 31(1) FSS Act
Case Details
2024 LawText (BOM) (03) 106
Writ Petition No. 373 of 2023
Nikhil Sakhardande, Harsh Gursahani, Ms. Subhra Paranchpe, Geeta Mulekar
Ranjitsinh H. N. Nimbalkar, Mrs. Jijamala R. N. Nimbalkar, Vinay Shrikant Thakur, Dhanaji Maruti Tone, Swaraj India Industries Ltd
State of Maharashtra, Ashok Bhupal Koli
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal writ petition under Article 227 challenging the order of Additional Sessions Judge dismissing revision against issuance of process.
Remedy Sought
Quashing of the order dated 20th August 2022 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli, and the order of issuance of process by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangli.
Filing Reason
The petitioners, including directors of a company, were summoned for offences under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 without specific allegations of their involvement.
Previous Decisions
The Chief Judicial Magistrate issued process against the petitioners; the Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the revision application.
Issues
Whether the directors can be vicariously liable for offences under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 without specific averments of their role.
Whether the process issued against the petitioners was legally sustainable.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the complaint lacked specific averments that the directors were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business, and thus vicarious liability could not be imposed.
Respondent State argued that the directors are liable as they were responsible for the company's affairs.
Ratio Decidendi
Vicarious liability of directors under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 cannot be presumed; there must be specific averments that the director was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business at the time of the offence. The complaint lacked such averments, and the process against the directors was quashed.
Judgment Excerpts
This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India calls in question the legality, propriety and correctness of an order dated 20th August, 2022, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli, in Criminal Revision Application No.52 of 2018, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge was persuaded to dismiss the revision application preferred by the petitioners against an order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangli of issue of process against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Section 59 read with 26(2)(i),3(1)(zz)(v), 26(2)(v) and 63 read with 31(1) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.
Procedural History
The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangli issued process against the petitioners for offences under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. The petitioners filed Criminal Revision Application No.52 of 2018 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli, which was dismissed on 20th August 2022. The petitioners then filed the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Acts & Sections
- Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006: 26(2)(i), 59, 63, 31(1), 3(1)(zz)(v)
- Constitution of India: 227
