https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311713 Section 33 of the Insecticides Act fastens company liability only on the company and on persons shown to be in charge of, or responsible for, its business when the offence occurred. Because the company had already identified the officer responsible for product quality, a bare and general allegation that the Managing Director managed overall affairs was insufficient to sustain vicarious prosecution, and that prosecution was quashed. The complaint itself was not quashed on procedural grounds: the second sample was tested promptly, the laboratory report was timely, and the absence of an inquiry under Section 202 CrPC did not justify quashing where the complaint was filed by a public servant with supporting official records and no prejudice was shown. en-us Wed, 04 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 23 Jan 2024 15:23:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311713 Section 33 of the Insecticides Act fastens company liability only on the company and on persons shown to be in charge of, or responsible for, its business when the offence occurred. Because the company had already identified the officer responsible for product quality, a bare and general allegation that the Managing Director managed overall affairs was insufficient to sustain vicarious prosecution, and that prosecution was quashed. The complaint itself was not quashed on procedural grounds: the second sample was tested promptly, the laboratory report was timely, and the absence of an inquiry under Section 202 CrPC did not justify quashing where the complaint was filed by a public servant with supporting official records and no prejudice was shown. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 04 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311713