Vicarious liability under food adulteration law requires arraigning the company first; prosecution of the officer alone was unsustainable.

Section 17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act creates vicarious liability for persons in charge of a company only where the company itself is shown to have committed the offence and is arraigned as an accused. Because the provision is penal and must be strictly construed, the corporate offender cannot be bypassed and prosecution of the managing director or other responsible officer alone is not maintainable. On that basis, the High Court treated the proceedings against the applicant alone, without impleading the company, as liable to be quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a prosecution alleging an offence by a company under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act can be maintained against the managing director or person in charge when the company itself has not been arraigned as an accused.

Analysis: Section 17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act creates vicarious liability only when the offence is committed by a company. The deeming fiction applies to persons in charge of the company's business, but the statutory condition precedent is that the company itself must first be shown to have committed the offence and must be before the court as an . Since the liability is penal in nature, the provision is to be strictly construed, and the corporate offender, being a juristic person, cannot be bypassed while prosecuting its officers for the same offence.

Conclusion: The prosecution against the applicant alone, without arraigning the company as an accused, was not maintainable and the proceedings were liable to be quashed.

---