https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357358 Vicarious criminal liability for company officers in misbranding prosecutions depends on the company being arraigned as an accused and the complaint containing specific averments that the named persons were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of business at the relevant time. Mere designation as Managing Director, Director or Chairman is insufficient, especially where no individual role is pleaded and the persons were not shown to be in the company during the offence period. A sample showing absence of a best before date indicated misbranding rather than adulteration, so proceedings launched under the adulteration provision were unsustainable. The criminal proceeding and cognizance order were therefore quashed as an abuse of process. en-us Fri, 08 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 27 Apr 2018 10:31:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357358 Vicarious criminal liability for company officers in misbranding prosecutions depends on the company being arraigned as an accused and the complaint containing specific averments that the named persons were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of business at the relevant time. Mere designation as Managing Director, Director or Chairman is insufficient, especially where no individual role is pleaded and the persons were not shown to be in the company during the offence period. A sample showing absence of a best before date indicated misbranding rather than adulteration, so proceedings launched under the adulteration provision were unsustainable. The criminal proceeding and cognizance order were therefore quashed as an abuse of process. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 08 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357358