Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, including directors and former directors of Colgate Palmolive (India) Limited, along with a proprietor and a distributor, filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of the order taking cognizance dated 22.03.2018 in C.C.No.7641/2018 passed by the XXIV A.C.M.M., Bangalore, and all further proceedings. The complaint was filed by the Inspector of Legal Metrology alleging that the petitioners sold toothpaste in packages that did not conform to the Legal Metrology Act, 2009. The court analyzed whether the directors could be vicariously liable for the alleged offence. It held that under Section 36 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, vicarious liability can only be imposed if there are 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 specific allegations against the directors. The court also noted that the proprietor and distributor were not shown to have any role in the alleged non-compliance. Consequently, the court quashed the order taking cognizance and all further proceedings against all petitioners.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Vicarious Liability - Section 36 Legal Metrology Act, 2009 - Quashing of Proceedings - The court considered whether directors can be held vicariously liable for an offence under the Act without specific averments of their role. Held that vicarious liability cannot be imposed in the absence of clear statutory provision and specific allegations. (Paras 1-10)
B) Criminal Procedure - Section 482 CrPC - Inherent Powers - Quashing of Complaint - The court examined the scope of inherent powers to quash proceedings where no prima facie case is made out. Held that proceedings can be quashed if the complaint does not disclose essential ingredients of the offence. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the directors of a company can be prosecuted under Section 36 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 without specific allegations of their involvement in the offence.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The order taking cognizance dated 22.03.2018 in C.C.No.7641/2018 and all further proceedings are quashed.
Law Points
- Vicarious liability
- strict construction of penal statutes
- quashing of criminal proceedings
- Section 482 CrPC
- Section 36 Legal Metrology Act
- 2009
Case Details
2022 LawText (KAR) (07) 42
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9401 OF 2018
SRI.SRINIVAS RAGHAVAN, Senior Advocate for MS.ARADHANA LAKHTAKIA., Advocate; SRI. ROHITH B.J., HCGP
Sri. Balakrishna (Proprietor), Sri G. Dalpathraj, Sri Niket Suresh Ghate, Sri Jamshed Khurshed Setna, Sri Rajendra Ambalal Shah, Sri. Vikram Singh Mehta, Sri Indu Ranjit Shahani, Sri Pradyot Kumar Ghosh, Smt. Shyamala Gopinath, Sri. Godfrey Nthunzi, Sri Issam Taoufic Bachaalani, Sri Vinod Nambiar
State of Karnataka, Department of Legal Metrology
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of order taking cognizance and further proceedings in a complaint under Legal Metrology Act, 2009.
Remedy Sought
Quashing of order taking cognizance dated 22.03.2018 in C.C.No.7641/2018 and all further proceedings.
Filing Reason
The petitioners were summoned as accused in a complaint alleging sale of non-conforming packages under the Legal Metrology Act, 2009.
Previous Decisions
Order taking cognizance dated 22.03.2018 passed by XXIV A.C.M.M., Bangalore.
Issues
Whether the directors can be vicariously liable under Section 36 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 without specific averments of their involvement.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that there are no specific allegations against the directors regarding their role in the alleged offence, and vicarious liability cannot be imposed without such averments.
Respondents argued that the directors are liable as they are responsible for the company's affairs.
Ratio Decidendi
Vicarious liability under Section 36 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 requires specific averments that the director was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business at the time of the offence. In the absence of such allegations, the proceedings against the directors are liable to be quashed.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:- i. Call for records in C.C.No.7641/2018...
This CRL.P is filed U/S.482 of CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER TAKING COGNIZANCE DATED 22.03.2018...
Procedural History
The complaint was filed by the Inspector of Legal Metrology, resulting in order taking cognizance on 22.03.2018 in C.C.No.7641/2018 by the XXIV A.C.M.M., Bangalore. The petitioners then filed this criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): 482
- Legal Metrology Act, 2009: 36
