Director prosecution survives where complaint pleads responsibility and alleged excise evasion with sufficient specific averments.

A criminal complaint against company directors under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 was held maintainable where it contained specific averments that they were responsible for the company's acts and were attending to duties at the relevant time. Allegations that excisable goods were removed from the factory without the prescribed gate pass and without payment of duty were sufficient at the threshold to justify prosecution. The Court held that the complaint could not be quashed merely for want of further proof, because the adequacy of the allegations and the directors' actual role had to be tested in evidence at trial.

---

---

Issues: Whether the complaint disclosed specific allegations against the directors so as to justify their prosecution under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.

Analysis: The complaint contained allegations that the accused were responsible for the acts of the company in the normal course and were attending to and performing duties at the relevant time. It also alleged removal of excisable goods from the factory without the prescribed gate pass and without payment of duty. In these circumstances, the Court held that it could not be said at the threshold that the complaint lacked specific averments against the petitioners. Whether the prosecution ultimately succeeds was treated as a matter of evidence to be tested at trial.

Conclusion: The complaint was held to be maintainable against the directors, and the challenge on the ground of absence of specific allegations failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A criminal complaint against company directors is not liable to be quashed at the threshold if it contains specific averments of responsibility or participation in the alleged evasion; sufficiency of such allegations is to be tested in evidence.

---