Vicarious liability of company officers requires specific averments of responsibility at the time of the offence; proceedings were quashed.

Vicarious criminal liability of a company officer requires specific averments that the person was in charge of, and responsible for, the company's business when the offence occurred. Mere later appointment as General Manager, without pleaded facts or supporting material showing responsibility at the relevant time, is insufficient to sustain summons or criminal proceedings. In the absence of such foundational allegations, process cannot validly be issued against the officer, and the complaint cannot stand against her. The proceedings against the petitioner were quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether summons and the criminal proceedings could be sustained against a person who was not specifically alleged in the complaint to have been in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the company's business at the time of the transaction.

Analysis: Liability of an officer of a company in a criminal complaint depends upon specific averments showing the role played by that person and her responsibility for the business of the company when the offence was committed. Mere subsequent holding of the office of General Manager, without pleading or material showing that she was in charge at the relevant time, is insufficient to fasten vicarious liability. In the absence of such foundational allegations, process cannot be validly issued against her and the complaint, so far as she is concerned, cannot stand.

Conclusion: The proceedings against the petitioner were unsustainable and were quashed.

---