Director liability requires specific culpable involvement, while a second FIR for the same transaction is impermissible.

Directors cannot be criminally prosecuted merely by virtue of office where the company is not arraigned, no statutory vicarious liability applies, and no material shows their active role, criminal intent, or participation in making forged laboratory reports. Forgery requires material connecting an accused with preparation of the false document. A subsequent FIR concerning overlapping export transactions and alleged forged reports already covered by an earlier FIR is impermissible where it concerns the same transaction rather than a genuine cross-case. Additional evidence or participants must be addressed through further investigation and a supplementary report in the original crime.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the company's directors could be prosecuted for alleged forged laboratory reports without the company being arraigned and without specific allegations of their active role or criminal intent; (ii) Whether a subsequent FIR concerning forged laboratory reports arising from overlapping transactions already covered by an earlier FIR was maintainable.

Issue (i): Whether the company's directors could be prosecuted for alleged forged laboratory reports without the company being arraigned and without specific allegations of their active role or criminal intent.

Analysis: Penal liability is not vicariously fastened on directors in the absence of a statutory basis. Where the company is not made an accused, directors require specific material showing an active role coupled with criminal intent. Forgery also requires that the accused be the maker of the false document; no material identified the directors as makers of, or participants in preparing, the alleged reports.

Conclusion: The prosecution of the directors was unsustainable; the issue was decided in favour of the petitioners.

Issue (ii): Whether a subsequent FIR concerning forged laboratory reports arising from overlapping transactions already covered by an earlier FIR was maintainable.

Analysis: The periods and export-related transactions in both FIRs overlapped, and the alleged forged reports formed part of the same company transactions. Information or evidence discovered regarding additional participants in the same transaction had to be pursued in the original investigation rather than through a fresh FIR. The later FIR was not a cross-case and amounted to an impermissible successive investigation.

Conclusion: The subsequent FIR was impermissible and constituted abuse of process; the issue was decided in favour of the petitioners.

Final Conclusion: Allegations concerning the same export transactions may be pursued, if warranted, through further investigation and a supplementary report in the original crime.

Ratio Decidendi: A second FIR cannot be registered for offences forming part of the same transaction already under investigation, and directors cannot be criminally proceeded against merely by virtue of their office without statutory vicarious liability or specific material establishing their active culpable role.

---