Case Note & Summary
The applicants, who were directors and a company (Marico Industries Ltd.), filed an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashing of Regular Criminal Case No. 13 of 1994 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad. The case arose from a complaint filed by the Food Inspector alleging offences under Sections 7(i), 2(ia)(a), 2(ia)(b), 2(ia)(c), 2(ia)(m) read with Sections 16(1)(a)(i), 16(1)(a)(ii), and 17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The Food Inspector had collected a sample of "Safola" refined edible oil from M/s Vasant Kirana Stores. The applicants were arraigned as accused nos. 8 to 14. The main legal issue was whether the directors and the company could be held vicariously liable for the alleged adulteration in the absence of specific allegations that they were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business at the time of the offence. The applicants argued that the complaint did not contain any such averments and that they were merely directors or the company without any role in the day-to-day affairs. The court, after examining the complaint, found that there were no specific allegations against the applicants to satisfy the requirements of Section 17 of the Act. The court held that vicarious liability cannot be imposed without such averments and that continuing the proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law. Consequently, the court quashed the criminal case against the applicants and set aside the order of issuance of process.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Prevention of Food Adulteration - Vicarious Liability - Section 17 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - Quashing of Criminal Proceedings - The court considered whether directors and a company could be prosecuted for food adulteration without specific averments that they were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business at the time of the offence - Held that in the absence of such allegations, the proceedings are liable to be quashed as the complaint does not disclose the essential ingredients to attract vicarious liability (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the criminal proceedings against the applicants (directors and company) can be quashed in the absence of specific allegations that they were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business at the time of the alleged offence under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
Final Decision
The application is allowed. Regular Criminal Case No. 13 of 1994 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad, and the order of issuance of process against the applicants are quashed and set aside.
Law Points
- Vicarious liability of directors and company for food adulteration offence requires specific averment that accused were in charge of and responsible for conduct of business at the time of offence
- Section 17 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act
- 1954
- Quashing under Section 482 CrPC
