Foundational averment for vicarious criminal liability required; prosecution against directors quashed where complaint omitted that basis.

A challenge to prosecution for alleged non-conformity of a sample failed at the threshold because the complaint and analyst's report prima facie indicated deviation from the label standard, and the correctness of the analytical method required evidence rather than inherent-jurisdiction review. On vicarious criminal liability, the complaint had to contain a foundational averment that the persons sought to be prosecuted were, at the relevant time, in charge of and responsible for the company's business. As no such allegation was made against two directors, proceedings were quashed against them, while the prosecution continued against the company and the remaining officers.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the prosecution was liable to be quashed for want of pleading as to the prescribed standard and the correctness of the analytical method adopted; (ii) Whether the complaint contained the necessary averments to proceed against the directors and other officers under the provision creating vicarious liability.

Issue (i): Whether the prosecution was liable to be quashed for want of pleading as to the prescribed standard and the correctness of the analytical method adopted.

Analysis: The complaint and the analyst's report showed, prima facie, that the sample did not conform to the standard indicated on the label. The challenge to the analytical method raised a matter requiring evidence and could not be examined in inherent jurisdiction at the threshold. The absence of an express statement in the complaint about the prescribed standard was not fatal where the statutory scheme itself indicated the relevant prescription.

Conclusion: The prosecution was not liable to be quashed on this ground.

Issue (ii): Whether the complaint contained the necessary averments to proceed against the directors and other officers under the provision creating vicarious liability.

Analysis: For fastening vicarious liability on persons associated with a company, the complaint must contain a basic averment that they were, at the relevant time, in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company. The complaint made no such allegation against two of the petitioners who were only described as directors and residents of Bombay. In contrast, the complaint specifically described the company itself and the other officers as being in charge of the business at the relevant places.

Conclusion: The proceedings were quashed against the two directors for want of the foundational averment, and the prosecution was sustained against the company and the remaining officers.

Final Conclusion: The inherent jurisdiction was exercised only to the extent necessary to eliminate the prosecution against those against whom the statutory foundation for vicarious liability was absent, while allowing the trial to continue against the other accused.

Ratio Decidendi: A complaint seeking to fasten vicarious criminal liability on company officials must contain a clear foundational averment that the persons sought to be prosecuted were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the company's business at the relevant time.

---