Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2018 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (3) TMI 1061 - HC - Indian LawsVicariously liability - Misbranding in terms of Section 2(ix)(j)&(k) of the Act - Cognizance of the offence - offence u/s 16(1)(A) of the Prohibition of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - it was alleged that that label on the Barley Powder Can does not bear “best before date”, which is required under the Rules 32(1) of the Prohibition of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. Held that: - the Court finds that Cans of Purity Indian Barley were taken from the premises of Shalimar Cold Stores, a C & F Agent of the company on 19.02.2003 and were sent to the public analyst for its report and the report dated 12.03.2003 indicates that manufacturing date is mentioned on the product 7/02, but the label does not bear “best before date” which is required under Rule 32(i) of the Rules, 1955, so a case of misbranding and not a case of adulteration. The offence for misbranding comes under Section 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 but inadvertently, oblivious of the correct provisions of law, cognizance was taken under Section 16(1)(A) of the Act - The company has not been arraigned as an accused in the complaint lodged by the Chief Medical Officer, only its Managing Director, all Directors, Chairman, all Administrative Officers and Production Incharge were made accused though it was an offence committed by the company. In case of offence committed by the company its officers cannot be made vicariously liable for commission of offence on the part of the company. Vicarious liability gets attracted in case of the officers of the company only when condition precedent laid down in Section 17(1) of the Act gets satisfied. Liability of the Directors of the company with respect to offence alleged to have been committed by the company - Held that: - a clear case requires to be spelled out alleging and naming the particular Director responsible to the company for the conduct of its business. In the present case, no such name with such averment is mentioned in the complaint - in the present case, only the Managing Director, all Directors, Chairman, all administrative Officers and Production Incharge have been arraigned as accused naming them in the column of the accused of the complaint in a typed format of complaint. There is no specific allegation regarding individuals‟ role in the management of the company rather all Directors and others have been made accused not even a particular managing Director or any Director by name has been made accused with the specific allegation regarding the specific role in the management of the company. As the company, namely, Reckitt Benckiser (India) Pvt. Ltd, has not been arraigned an accused as per Section 17(1) of the Act, so its all officers including Managing Director, all Directors, Chairman, Production Incharge in absence of specific name of any officers of the company with allegation of being responsible for the conduct of business of the company, cannot be held vicariously liable for the alleged offence. Application allowed.
|