Company directors cannot face excise prosecution without specific averments showing responsibility for the alleged contravention.

Criminal liability under Section 9 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 could not be fastened on company directors or a manager unless the complaint specifically alleged that they were in charge of, or responsible for, the company's business or manufacture. A bare reference to their office in the company was insufficient because prosecution for excise contraventions requires a factual foundation showing personal role in the alleged breach. In the absence of such averments, the complaint did not disclose a proceedable case against them, and the proceedings were liable to be quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a complaint under Section 9 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 could be sustained against company directors and a manager in the absence of any specific averment showing their role in the alleged contravention.

Analysis: The complaint alleged contravention of Section 6 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and several rules under the Central Excises Rules, 1944 by the company, but it did not contain any pleading that the petitioners were directors, a manager, or otherwise in charge of, or responsible for, the conduct of the company's business or manufacture. In criminal prosecution for such offences, liability cannot be assumed merely because of an asserted office in the company unless the complaint itself contains the necessary factual foundation. The absence of any such allegation meant that the petitioners were not shown to have committed the offence or to be proceedable against under Section 9.

Conclusion: The complaint and the proceedings against the petitioners were liable to be quashed.

---