Company officer vicarious liability requires proof of consent, connivance or neglect; mere designation is not enough.

A company officer cannot be convicted for an offence committed by the company unless the statute's conditions for vicarious liability are proved by evidence of consent, connivance, or neglect; mere designation as commercial manager is insufficient, and the conviction could not be sustained. The defence that the article sold was toned milk rather than adulterated buffalo milk also failed because it was unsupported by the surrounding circumstances and no prompt step was taken to test the retained sample on that basis. The revision succeeded on individual liability, and the conviction and sentence could not stand against the applicant.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the applicant, being a commercial manager of the company, could be held liable for the offence in the absence of proof of consent, connivance, or neglect under the company-liability provision; (ii) Whether the defence that the article sold was toned milk, and not adulterated buffalo milk, displaced the conviction.

Issue (i): Whether the applicant, being a commercial manager of the company, could be held liable for the offence in the absence of proof of consent, connivance, or neglect under the company-liability provision.

Analysis: The company was a separate legal entity and the statutory scheme contemplated prosecution of the company itself, with vicarious liability of directors, managers, secretaries, or other officers arising only where the offence was committed with their consent or connivance, or was attributable to their neglect. The record contained no evidence connecting the applicant with the manufacture or sale of the milk or showing any nexus between him and the offence. Mere designation as commercial manager was insufficient to attract liability.

Conclusion: The applicant was not liable for the offence, and the conviction could not be sustained against him.

Issue (ii): Whether the defence that the article sold was toned milk, and not adulterated buffalo milk, displaced the conviction.

Analysis: The contention was found unsupported by the surrounding circumstances, including the absence of any prompt step to have the retained sample tested on that footing. The lower courts had rejected the contention, and no material emerged to dislodge that view.

Conclusion: The defence regarding toned milk failed.

Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded on the question of individual liability, and the sentence and conviction could not stand against the applicant.

Ratio Decidendi: A company officer cannot be convicted for an offence committed by the company or its employee unless the statute's conditions for vicarious liability are proved by evidence of consent, connivance, or neglect.

---