Vicarious liability under company offence provisions requires clear pleadings; general allegations against a Managing Director were insufficient.

Section 33 of the Insecticides Act fastens company liability only on the company and on persons shown to be in charge of, or responsible for, its business when the offence occurred. Because the company had already identified the officer responsible for product quality, a bare and general allegation that the Managing Director managed overall affairs was insufficient to sustain vicarious prosecution, and that prosecution was quashed. The complaint itself was not quashed on procedural grounds: the second sample was tested promptly, the laboratory report was timely, and the absence of an inquiry under Section 202 CrPC did not justify quashing where the complaint was filed by a public servant with supporting official records and no prejudice was shown.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Managing Director could be prosecuted for the alleged offences when the company had already identified the responsible officer for quality control under the statutory scheme for offences by companies. (ii) Whether the complaint was liable to be quashed for non-compliance with the procedure relating to sampling and the taking of cognizance under the criminal procedure law.

Issue (i): Whether the Managing Director could be prosecuted for the alleged offences when the company had already identified the responsible officer for quality control under the statutory scheme for offences by companies.

Analysis: Section 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 fastens liability on the company and on the person who was in charge of, or responsible to, the company for the conduct of its business when the offence was committed. The company had furnished an undertaking naming the officer responsible for maintaining product quality, and that arrangement was not disputed. In that setting, a bare assertion that the Managing Director was generally responsible for the company's affairs was not sufficient to justify prosecution. Vicarious liability could not be extended on vague allegations when the statutory responsibility had been specifically allocated to another officer.

Conclusion: The prosecution of the Managing Director was not sustainable and was quashed.

Issue (ii): Whether the complaint was liable to be quashed for non-compliance with the procedure relating to sampling and the taking of cognizance under the criminal procedure law.

Analysis: The record showed that the second sample was sent promptly for testing after the necessary deposit was made and the laboratory report was received within time. As to cognizance, the complaint was filed by a public servant in discharge of official duty, supported by official laboratory reports and documents. In such circumstances, the absence of an inquiry or investigation under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 did not by itself warrant quashing, particularly when no prejudice was shown. The complaint therefore could not be invalidated on this ground at the stage of quashing.

Conclusion: The complaint was not liable to be quashed on procedural grounds.

Final Conclusion: The challenge succeeded only to the extent of the Managing Director, while the proceedings against the company were left intact.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a company has specifically identified the officer responsible for compliance and product quality, a Managing Director cannot be prosecuted on general and vague allegations of overall responsibility; statutory vicarious liability must rest on clear pleadings and the governing provision.

---