Vicarious criminal liability of a company nominee cannot stand when the company itself is not prosecuted.

Section 66 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 fastens company liability and extends responsibility to persons in charge of its business, but vicarious criminal liability of a nominee or officer ordinarily depends on the company being arraigned as an accused unless the statute clearly provides otherwise. Where the alleged manufacturer was the company, the company itself was not prosecuted, and no personal allegation was made against the nominee in an individual capacity, prosecution of the nominee alone was unsustainable. On that basis, the quashing application was allowed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the prosecution of a nominee of a company can be sustained for offences under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 when the company itself has not been arraigned as an accused.

Analysis: Section 66 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 creates company liability and also fastens liability on persons in charge or responsible for the conduct of the business of the company. The controlling principle applied is that vicarious criminal liability of officers or nominees depends on the prosecution of the company itself, unless the statute clearly provides otherwise. On the facts, the alleged manufacturer was the company, but the company was not made an accused and there was no personal allegation against the applicant in his individual capacity. In such circumstances, prosecution of the nominee alone could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The prosecution against the applicant was bad in law and the quashing application was allowed.

---