Vicarious liability of directors under foreign exchange law requires a specific averment of responsibility at the time of contravention.

Section 68 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act fastens vicarious criminal liability only on a person who was, at the time of contravention, in charge of and responsible for the company's business. A complaint that merely describes an accused as a director, without a specific averment of such responsibility, is insufficient to found prosecution. The record further showed that the petitioner had ceased to be a director before the export proceeds were required to be realised, so the deeming provision did not apply on the date of the alleged offence. The complaint therefore failed to disclose a prima facie case and discharge was warranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the complaint disclosed a prima facie case against a former director so as to justify his prosecution for contravention of foreign exchange provisions, and whether liability could attach in the absence of an averment that he was in charge of and responsible for the company's business at the relevant time.

Analysis: Section 68 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 is a deeming provision that fastens liability only on a person who was, at the time of contravention, in charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of its business. The complaint did not contain a specific and substantive averment attributing such responsibility to the petitioner beyond stating that he was a director. The Court applied the principle that mere designation as a director is insufficient to attract vicarious criminal liability, and relied on the settled requirement that the relevant role must exist when the offence is committed. The record also showed that the petitioner had ceased to be a director before the dates on which the export proceeds were required to be realised, so the statutory deeming provision was not attracted on the date of the alleged offence.

Conclusion: The complaint did not make out even a prima facie case against the petitioner, and his discharge from the complaint was warranted.

---