Specific allegations are required before summoning company ; mere designation does not create automatic vicarious criminal liability.

A complaint under Section 200 CrPC requires the Magistrate to apply mind to the allegations and supporting material before issuing summons, and summoning an accused is a serious matter. Where company officers are sought to be prosecuted, the complaint must contain specific averments showing each accused's individual role in the alleged wrongdoing; mere designation as Chairman, Managing Director, Executive Director, Deputy General Manager, planner or executor is not enough. In the absence of a statutory basis for vicarious liability, criminal liability cannot be fastened automatically on directors or officers simply because they control the company. A prima facie case must be shown against each accused, and the process issued against the company officials was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether process could be issued against company officials and executives in the absence of specific allegations showing their individual role, and whether they could be treated as vicariously liable for the alleged offences.

Analysis: A complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 requires the Magistrate to apply mind to the allegations and the supporting material before issuing summons. Summoning an accused is a serious matter and, where company officers are sought to be prosecuted, the complaint must contain specific averments showing the part played by each accused in the alleged wrongdoing. Mere designation as Chairman, Managing Director, Executive Director, Deputy General Manager, planner or executor is insufficient by itself. In the absence of a statutory provision creating vicarious liability, criminal liability cannot be fastened automatically on directors or officers merely because they are in control of the company, and a prima facie case must be shown against each such accused.

Conclusion: The issue was answered against the complainant. The order issuing process against the company officials was rightly set aside for want of specific allegations and material showing their individual role, and no automatic vicarious liability could be imputed.

---