Vicarious criminal liability of company officers fails where the complaint omits specific averments of control at the relevant time.

Criminal liability of a company officer depends on a clear pleading that the person was, at the time of the alleged offence, in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business. Where the complaint attributed liability only by reference to the accused's office as Managing Director, but the alleged excise evasion related to an earlier period before she assumed that role, the statutory basis for vicarious liability was not made out. In the absence of specific averments showing control during the relevant period, continuation of the prosecution was treated as an abuse of process and the proceedings were quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the criminal proceedings under the Central Excise Act could continue against a person who was not the Managing Director during the period of the alleged offence, when the complaint proceeded on the footing that liability arose only from that office.

Analysis: The complaint attributed liability to the petitioner solely in her capacity as Managing Director, while the alleged excise evasion related to an earlier period when she had not assumed that office. The legal position applied was that prosecution of a company officer requires specific averments that the person was, at the relevant time, in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business, and that mere status as a director is not enough. The complaint did not contain allegations showing that the petitioner was in control of the company during the relevant period, nor did it make out a basis for proceeding against her on the footing adopted by the prosecution. In these circumstances, continuation of the criminal case would amount to an abuse of process.

Conclusion: The proceedings against the petitioner were held not maintainable and were quashed.

Final Conclusion: Criminal prosecution cannot be sustained against a company officer when the complaint itself fails to plead the statutory basis for vicarious liability at the time of the alleged offence.

Ratio Decidendi: For offences alleged against a company, criminal liability of an officer depends on a clear pleading and basis that the person was, at the time of the offence, in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business; absent such material, prosecution is liable to be quashed.

---