High Court of Judicature at Bombay Allows Directors' Application to Quash Criminal Complaint in Food Adulteration Case — Lack of Specific Allegations Against Directors. Vicarious Liability Under Section 17 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 Requires Specific Averments of Being in Charge of Business.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: AURANGABAD In Favour of Accused
  • 86
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The applicants, six directors of M/s Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd., filed an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashing of Criminal Case No. 123 of 2006 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dhule, arising out of a complaint filed by the Food Inspector, Rajaram Vaman Joshi, under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The complaint alleged that a sample of 'Ruchi Gold' refined sunflower oil collected from a retailer was found adulterated. The applicants contended that they were merely directors and not involved in the day-to-day business of the company, and the complaint did not contain specific allegations against them. The State opposed the application, arguing that directors are vicariously liable. The High Court, after examining the complaint, found that it lacked specific averments that the applicants were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business at the time of the offence. Relying on the principle that vicarious liability of directors requires specific allegations, the court allowed the application and quashed the proceedings against the applicants.

Headnote

A) Criminal Law - Quashing of Criminal Proceedings - Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - Section 17 - Vicarious Liability of Directors - The court considered whether directors can be held vicariously liable without specific allegations of their involvement in the day-to-day business or the alleged adulteration. Held that in the absence of specific averments that the directors were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business, the complaint against them is liable to be quashed (Paras 1-10).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether criminal proceedings against directors of a company can be quashed when the complaint lacks specific allegations regarding their role in the alleged offence under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The application is allowed. Criminal Case No.123 of 2006 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dhule, is quashed and set aside against the applicants.

Law Points

  • Criminal liability of directors under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act
  • 1954
  • vicarious liability
  • requirement of specific averments
  • quashing of criminal proceedings
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2017 LawText (BOM) (12) 38

Criminal Application No.2019 of 2006

2017-12-11

Prakash D. Naik, J.

Mr.K.H.Parekh for Applicants, Mr.K.S.Patil APP for Respondent

Ashutosh Bhailal Rao, P.S.Santhanakrishnan, Kailash Mahadeo Shahra, Dinesh Mahadeo Shahra, P.D.Nagar, Shrikrishna Pralhad Joshi

The State of Maharashtra

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Criminal application under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of criminal complaint

Remedy Sought

Quashing of Criminal Case No.123 of 2006 pending before Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dhule

Filing Reason

Applicants, directors of M/s Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd., sought quashing of complaint alleging adulteration of 'Ruchi Gold' refined sunflower oil, contending lack of specific allegations against them

Issues

Whether the criminal complaint against the directors can be quashed for lack of specific allegations regarding their role in the alleged offence under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

Submissions/Arguments

Applicants argued that they are merely directors and not involved in day-to-day business; complaint lacks specific allegations against them. Respondent argued that directors are vicariously liable under Section 17 of the Act.

Ratio Decidendi

Vicarious liability of directors under Section 17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 requires specific allegations 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 averments, criminal proceedings against directors are liable to be quashed.

Judgment Excerpts

This is an application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of Criminal Case No.123 of 2006 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dhule.

Procedural History

The complaint was filed by the Food Inspector under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, alleging adulteration of oil. The applicants filed this application under Section 482 CrPC for quashing the proceedings against them.

Acts & Sections

  • Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954: Section 17
  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 482
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Judicature at Bombay Allows Directors' Application to Quash Criminal Complaint in Food Adulteration Case — Lack of Specific Allegations Against Directors. Vicarious Liability Under Section 17 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 19...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Reinstates Disciplinary Action Against Bank Officer for Misconduct Under UCO Bank Regulations. Charges of Opening Accounts Without Introduction and Deviating from Cash Procedures Were Specific and Inquiry Followed Due Process, Upholding...