Supreme Court quashes vicarious liability case under Weights & Measures Act

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal against the High Court of Karnataka's order dismissing a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court held that the complaint failed to attribute any specific act of the Managing Director, seeking to hold him vicariously liable for the company's alleged offense under the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976. As the complaint did not establish the Managing Director's responsibility for the company's conduct leading to the offense, the Court quashed the proceedings against the accused-Appellant.

---

---

Issues: Challenge against the order of the High Court dismissing the petition for quashing criminal proceedings under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure.

In this judgment, the Supreme Court considered an appeal challenging the High Court of Karnataka's order dismissing a petition filed under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure by the Managing Director of a company facing prosecution under the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976. The complaint alleged that the company had committed an offense, and the Managing Director was sought to be made vicariously liable due to holding the office at the relevant time. The Court noted that the complaint did not specifically attribute any act of the Managing Director resulting in the alleged offenses. The Court referred to Section 74 of the Act, which imposes vicarious liability on individuals in charge of a company if an offense is committed by the company. However, the Court observed that the complaint lacked averments establishing the Managing Director's responsibility for the company's conduct in relation to the alleged offense. The Court emphasized the need for a clear and categorical statement in the complaint to establish vicarious liability of a company officer. Since the complaint did not implicate the Managing Director in any specific act leading to the offense and did not establish his responsibility for the company's conduct, the Court held that the proceedings against the accused-Appellant were liable to be quashed. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court's order and allowed the appeal.

---