High Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings Against Director in Legal Metrology Act Case Due to Lack of Specific Allegations. Vicarious Liability Not Established Under Section 49 of Legal Metrology Act, 2009

Sub Category: Bombay High Court Bench: NAGPUR
  • 10
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The judgment involved a criminal application filed by Applicant challenging proceedings under the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, for alleged packaging violations by M/s Glaxo Smithkline Consumer Healthcare Limited -- The High Court examined whether the complaint made specific allegations against the applicant as a director to impose vicarious liability under Section 49(1) of the Act -- The Court found the complaint deficient as it did not aver that the applicant was in charge of the company's day-to-day affairs or responsible for the alleged offence -- Citing legal principles from Section 49(1) and precedents, the Court held that without such specific allegations, the magistrate should not have taken cognizance -- Consequently, the Court quashed the criminal proceedings, emphasizing the need for prima facie disclosure of offences in complaints against corporate officials

Headnote

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, quashed criminal proceedings against the applicant, a director of M/s Glaxo Smithkline Consumer Healthcare Limited, in Summary Criminal Case No.1129/2015 -- The complaint alleged violations of Section 18(1) of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, and Rule 24 of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011, punishable under Section 36(1) of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 -- The Court held that the complaint lacked specific averments to fasten vicarious liability on the applicant under Section 49(1) of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, as it did not allege he was in charge of or responsible for the company's business conduct -- Relying on precedents including Sharad Kumar Sanghi Vs. Sangita Rane (2015) 12 SCC 781, the Court emphasized that magistrates must not issue process without prima facie evidence of an offence -- The application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 was allowed, quashing the proceedings pending before the 5th Joint Civil Judge Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Amravati

Issue of Consideration: The Issue of Consideration was whether the criminal complaint against the applicant, a director of a company, disclosed prima facie offences under the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, and whether vicarious liability could be imposed without specific allegations regarding his role in the company's day-to-day affairs

Final Decision

The High Court allowed the criminal application and quashed the proceedings in Summary Criminal Case No.1129/2015 pending before the 5th Joint Civil Judge Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Amravati

2026 LawText (BOM) (02) 35

Criminal Application (APL) No.716 of 2025

2026-02-03

Urmila Joshi-Phalke, J.

2026:BHC-NAG:1770

Mr. H. V. Thakur, Mr. Parth Ranade for applicant, Mr. H. D. Dubey for State

Mukesh s/o Hari Butani

State of Maharashtra through the Inspector, Legal Metrology, Amravati Division No.3

Nature of Litigation: Criminal application for quashing of proceedings under the Legal Metrology Act, 2009

Remedy Sought

The applicant sought quashing of Summary Criminal Case No.1129/2015 pending before the magistrate

Filing Reason

The applicant challenged the issuance of process by the magistrate, alleging lack of specific allegations against him as a director

Previous Decisions

The magistrate had taken cognizance and issued process against the applicant based on the complaint filed by the Inspector of Legal Metrology

Issues

Whether the criminal complaint disclosed prima facie offences under the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 against the applicant Whether vicarious liability could be imposed on the applicant under Section 49(1) of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 without specific allegations regarding his role in the company

Submissions/Arguments

The applicant argued that the complaint lacked specific averments connecting him to the alleged offence and did not allege he was in charge of the company's day-to-day affairs The State contended that as a director, the applicant was responsible for the company's activities, justifying the issuance of process

Ratio Decidendi

Under Section 49(1) of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, vicarious liability on directors requires specific averments in the complaint that they were in charge of and responsible for the company's business conduct -- Without such allegations, a magistrate should not take cognizance or issue process, as the complaint fails to prima facie disclose an offence against the individual

Judgment Excerpts

Held that the complaint did not contain specific averments to fasten vicarious liability on the applicant under Section 49(1) of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 Held that until and unless a specific averment is made in the complaint that the Director was in-charge of and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business, the learned Magistrate should not have taken cognizance

Procedural History

The Inspector of Legal Metrology filed a criminal complaint alleging violations under the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 -- The magistrate took cognizance and issued process against the applicant -- The applicant filed Criminal Application (APL) No.716 of 2025 under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for quashing -- The High Court admitted the application, heard it finally, and pronounced the judgment on 03.02.2026

Related Judgement
High Court High Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings Against Director in Legal Metrology Act ...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Declared Reassessment Notice Under Section 148 Of The Income-T...