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
Law Points
- Vicarious liability under Section 49 of the Legal Metrology Act
- 2009 requires specific averments in complaints against company directors
- Principles of corporate criminal liability as per Section 49(1) of the Legal Metrology Act
- 2009
- Quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
- 2023 when allegations do not prima facie disclose an offence
- Interpretation of Section 49(1) of the Legal Metrology Act
- 2009 regarding offences by companies and liability of persons in charge
- Legal standards for issuance of process by magistrates under Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
- 1973 (CrPC)
