https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47068 Criminal prosecution for a company offence under the Customs Act cannot continue against a director unless the complaint and supporting material specifically plead that she was in charge of and responsible for the company's business at the relevant time. Here, the complaint lacked any specific allegation of active involvement in day-to-day affairs, and the material indicated that the husband was managing the business while the petitioner was only a director. The court therefore treated the foundational requirements for vicarious liability as absent and held that continuation of the criminal process was unwarranted. The inherent jurisdiction was properly exercised to quash the proceedings against the petitioner. en-us Tue, 01 Apr 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 26 Jul 2010 17:48:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47068 Criminal prosecution for a company offence under the Customs Act cannot continue against a director unless the complaint and supporting material specifically plead that she was in charge of and responsible for the company's business at the relevant time. Here, the complaint lacked any specific allegation of active involvement in day-to-day affairs, and the material indicated that the husband was managing the business while the petitioner was only a director. The court therefore treated the foundational requirements for vicarious liability as absent and held that continuation of the criminal process was unwarranted. The inherent jurisdiction was properly exercised to quash the proceedings against the petitioner. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 01 Apr 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47068