https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283517 Complaints against company directors under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 must contain specific averments showing either that the directors were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business, or that the offence occurred with their consent, connivance, or attributable neglect. Mere status as directors, or general allegations of participation in manufacturing, sale, stocking, or distribution, is insufficient to attract vicarious liability. Here, the complaints and supporting materials only showed that the petitioners were directors at the relevant time, with no concrete nexus to the alleged offence. Continuation of the prosecution would therefore amount to abuse of process, and the High Court could invoke inherent jurisdiction to quash the process orders. en-us Thu, 17 Jan 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 26 Sep 2019 14:46:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283517 Complaints against company directors under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 must contain specific averments showing either that the directors were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business, or that the offence occurred with their consent, connivance, or attributable neglect. Mere status as directors, or general allegations of participation in manufacturing, sale, stocking, or distribution, is insufficient to attract vicarious liability. Here, the complaints and supporting materials only showed that the petitioners were directors at the relevant time, with no concrete nexus to the alleged offence. Continuation of the prosecution would therefore amount to abuse of process, and the High Court could invoke inherent jurisdiction to quash the process orders. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 17 Jan 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283517