Case Note & Summary
The applicants, who are directors of M/s. Bunge India Private Limited, filed a criminal application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashment of criminal proceedings initiated against them in connection with a complaint lodged by the Food Inspector, Sandeep S. Deore, before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur. The complaint alleged offences under Section 7(1) read with Sections 2(ia)(a) and 2(ia)(m) punishable under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The Food Inspector had visited the premises of M/s. Guru Nanak Kirana and General Stores and collected samples of 'Bunge Dalda' and 'Bunge Vanaspati' manufactured by the applicant company. Upon analysis, the samples were found to be adulterated. The complaint named the company and its directors as accused. The directors contended that the complaint did not contain any specific allegations against them individually regarding their role, consent, connivance, or neglect in the commission of the offence. They argued that merely being directors does not make them vicariously liable under Section 17 of the Act. The court examined the complaint and found that it only contained a general statement that the directors were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business, without any specific averments as required by law. The court held that in the absence of specific allegations, the proceedings against the directors were liable to be quashed. The court allowed the application and quashed the criminal proceedings against the directors, but clarified that the proceedings against the company would continue. The court also directed that the trial court shall proceed with the case against the company in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Vicarious Liability of Directors - Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - Section 17 - Quashment of Proceedings - The complaint against directors must contain specific averments that they were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business at the time of the offence, and that the offence was committed with their consent, connivance, or due to their neglect. In the absence of such allegations, proceedings are liable to be quashed. (Paras 4-7) B) Criminal Procedure - Quashment of FIR/Complaint - Section 482 CrPC - Abuse of Process - Where the complaint does not disclose any prima facie case against the directors and the allegations are vague and general, continuing the proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law. The High Court can exercise inherent powers to quash such proceedings. (Paras 8-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether criminal proceedings against directors of a company can be quashed when the complaint lacks specific allegations regarding their role, consent, connivance, or neglect in the commission of the offence under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
Final Decision
The court allowed the application and quashed the criminal proceedings against the directors (applicants No. 1 to 4 and 6 to 9). The proceedings against the company (applicant No. 5 and 10) were not quashed and the trial court was directed to proceed against the company in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Vicarious liability of directors under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act
- 1954 requires specific allegations of consent
- connivance
- or neglect
- Quashment of criminal proceedings for lack of prima facie case against directors
- Section 17 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act
- 1954 imposes liability only on persons in charge of and responsible for conduct of business
