<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2011 (4) TMI 345 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205477</link>
    <description>Criminal proceedings against a company officer under the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 and the Packaged Commodities Rules, 1977 cannot be sustained unless the complaint contains specific averments that the accused was in charge of, and responsible for, the company&#039;s day-to-day business at the time of the offence. A bare repetition of the statutory wording is insufficient, and a roving enquiry is impermissible. Where no material particulars distinguish the officer&#039;s role from that of another person whose proceedings were already quashed on the same basis, the vicarious-liability allegation fails and the complaint is liable to be quashed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 07 Apr 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 17 Aug 2011 18:36:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=178985" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (4) TMI 345 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205477</link>
      <description>Criminal proceedings against a company officer under the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 and the Packaged Commodities Rules, 1977 cannot be sustained unless the complaint contains specific averments that the accused was in charge of, and responsible for, the company&#039;s day-to-day business at the time of the offence. A bare repetition of the statutory wording is insufficient, and a roving enquiry is impermissible. Where no material particulars distinguish the officer&#039;s role from that of another person whose proceedings were already quashed on the same basis, the vicarious-liability allegation fails and the complaint is liable to be quashed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 07 Apr 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205477</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>