Vicarious criminal liability for company officers requires specific averments of control, responsibility, or participation, not designation alone.

Vicarious criminal liability of company officers does not arise from designation alone under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The complaint must contain specific averments showing that the accused was in charge of and responsible for the company's business, or that he consented to, connived in, or negligently permitted the offence. A bald assertion that all directors are liable is insufficient, and the Court compared this requirement with the deeming scheme under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. In the absence of foundational particulars of the Director-Chairman's role, cognizance and summons were held unsustainable, the proceedings against him were quashed, and the case continued against the remaining accused.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner, being a Director and Chairman of the companies, could be prosecuted for the alleged contravention under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 in the absence of specific averments showing that he was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the companies, or that he had consented to, connived in, or negligently allowed the alleged offence.

Analysis: Liability of company officers for offences committed by the company is not automatic. A Director or Chairman is not, by virtue of office alone, vicariously liable for criminal acts of the company. For prosecution to lie, the complaint must contain clear and specific allegations showing the accused's role in the day-to-day conduct of the business, or the facts bringing him within the statutory deeming provisions. The Court compared the scheme of Section 10 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and reiterated that a mere bald assertion that all directors are responsible is insufficient. The complaint here contained no particulars of the petitioner's overt act, control, knowledge, or participation. The fact that the petitioner held the offices of Director and Chairman, or that his sons were managing directors, did not by itself establish criminal responsibility. In the absence of foundational averments, the Magistrate could not validly take cognizance against the petitioner.

Conclusion: The petitioner could not be prosecuted on the basis of his designation alone, and the cognizance and summons issued against him were unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The proceedings were quashed as against the petitioner, while the case was directed to continue against the remaining accused.

Ratio Decidendi: In prosecutions against company officers for offences attributable to the company, vicarious criminal liability can be fastened only when the complaint contains specific material showing that the accused was in charge of and responsible for the company's business, or had consented to, connived in, or negligently permitted the offence; designation alone is insufficient.

---