Vicarious criminal liability requires specific averments linking a company officer to business control before prosecution can proceed.

Vicarious criminal liability under section 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 is not automatic for every director or officer of a company. The complaint must specifically aver that the accused was in charge of, and responsible for, the conduct of the company's business at the relevant time; a bare reference to designation or role is insufficient. Applying settled principles on analogous deeming provisions, the Court reiterated that such liability arises only when the statute and the complaint contain the necessary particulars linking the accused to the business and the alleged offence. On the complaint as framed, prosecution could not be sustained and quashing of the summons was justified.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondent could be summoned and made vicariously liable for the alleged offence by the company under section 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 in the absence of specific averments showing that he was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the company's business.

Analysis: Liability under section 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 is not automatic against every director or officer of a company. The complainant must specifically aver how the accused was in charge of the business of the company or was responsible for its conduct at the relevant time. The Court reiterated that vicarious criminal liability is an exception to the normal rule and can arise only where the statute and the complaint satisfy the necessary requirements. By applying the settled principles on analogous deeming provisions, the Court held that mere designation or general reference to an officer's role is insufficient unless the complaint contains the necessary particulars connecting the accused with the conduct of the business and the alleged offence.

Conclusion: The respondent could not be compelled to face prosecution on the basis of the complaint as framed, and the quashing of the summons was justified.

---