Company officer liability in misbranding cases needs the company as accused and specific pleadings of responsibility at the offence time.

Vicarious criminal liability for company officers in misbranding prosecutions depends on the company being arraigned as an accused and the complaint containing specific averments that the named persons were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of business at the relevant time. Mere designation as Managing Director, Director or Chairman is insufficient, especially where no individual role is pleaded and the persons were not shown to be in the company during the offence period. A sample showing absence of a best before date indicated misbranding rather than adulteration, so proceedings launched under the adulteration provision were unsustainable. The criminal proceeding and cognizance order were therefore quashed as an abuse of process.

---

---

Issues: Whether the criminal proceeding and cognizance order were liable to be quashed for misbranding charges against company officers when the company itself was not arraigned as an accused and the complaint lacked specific averments showing responsibility of the named individuals.

Analysis: The sample analysis showed absence of a "best before date", which disclosed misbranding and not adulteration. The proceeding, however, was launched under the provision relating to adulteration. The Court applied the statutory scheme governing offences by companies and the settled principle that vicarious criminal liability of officers arises only when the company is made an accused and the complaint contains clear averments that the concerned persons were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business. Mere description of persons as Managing Director, Director, Chairman or other officers, without naming them or attributing a specific role, was held insufficient. The Court also noted that the petitioners were not in the company at the relevant time.

Conclusion: The complaint and cognizance order could not be sustained against the petitioners, and continuation of the prosecution was an abuse of process.

Final Conclusion: The entire criminal proceeding, including the cognizance order, was set aside and the quashing applications were allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: In prosecutions for company offences, the company must be arraigned as an accused and the complaint must contain specific averments showing that the persons sought to be made liable were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business at the time of the offence; absent these requirements, vicarious liability cannot be fastened on company officers.

---