BEFORE THE COURT OF HONBLE CHIEF JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE AT RAJPIPLA

CRIMINAL CASE NO.888 OF 2002

Complainant: A.M.Shah, Food Inspector

Versus

Accused : Nandkishor S. Vyavhare & Ors.


LIST OF AUTHORITIES BY THE ACCUSED
Citation Particulars Important
Head Notes
and Paras
(2013) 2 G.L.H 144
RAMAN KRISHNA IYER
VS
STATE OF GUJARAT &
ORS.
PREVENTION OF FOOD
ADULTRATION ACT 1954 S. 7 (1)
AND S. 16 compliance of rule 14
raised doubt Mere storing adulterated
article of food other than for sale would
not constitute an offence It should be
shown that the food article was being
sold in ordinary course of business.
Main Head
Note
MANU/DE/0133/2013
RAGHUNANDAN PRASAD
& ORS.
VS
THE STATE
CRIMINAL Quashing of proceeding
Offence committed punishable under
sections 7/16 of Prevention Of Food
Adulteration Act 1954 it was held
that director cannot be deemed to be in
charge of affairs of a company simply
because of his being a director and
unless pleaded in the complaint that
particular director sought to be
prosecuted was in fact in charge of
affairs of company , which had allegedly
committed some offence ,he could not
be prosecuted merely on averment in
complaint that he was a director and as
such in charge of affairs of company.
Case Note
2010 (11) SCC 469
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
VS.
RAJIV KHURANA
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-
Section 482 - Vicarious liability of
Directors - Neither any specific role
attributed to Respondent in commission
of alleged offence nor established that
Respondent was in any way responsible
or in charge of affairs of Company to be
vicariously liable - Held, in absence of
such clear averments in the complaint,
Respondent cannot be compelled to face
criminal trial Imperative to specifically
aver in complaint that accused was in
Head Note

charge of and was responsible for
conduct of business of the Company -
Further held, every Director need not be
and is not in charge of business of
Company and in case of such Non-
Director Officer, it is all the more
necessary to state what his duties and
responsibilities were, and in what
manner he was liable.
2005 (8) SCC 89

S. M. S.
PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.
VS.
NEETA BHALLA &
ANOTHER
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881-
S.141 & 138 Offence by company-
Held, it is necessary to aver that at the
time the offence was committed the
person accused was in charge of, and
responsible for the conduct of business
of the company.
Head Note
A
1998 (5) SCC 343
STATE OF HARYANA
VS.
BRIJLAL MITTAL & ORS.
Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940- S.34-
Offences by Companies - Simply
because a person is director of the
company he does not vicariously
become liable for offence committed by
the company - It must be shown that he
was in charge of the company and also
responsible to the company for the
conduct of its business - Prevention of
Food Adulteration Act, 1954, S. 17.
Head Note -
B
1983 (1) SCC 1
MUNICIPAL
CORPORATION OF DELHI
VS.
RAM KRISHAN ROHATGI
AND OTHERS.
Complaint against accused Manager
and Directors of Manufacturing
Company for commission of offence
under S. 7/16, Prevention of Food
Adulteration Act, presuming that the
accused were in charge of and
responsible for the conduct of the
business of the Company at the time of
sampling- Held, prima-facie offence
made out against the Manager in view of
the very nature of his office and
functions, but the complaint vague as
regards the Directors and no offence
revealed against them- Hence High
Court justifies in quashing proceedings
against the Directors but erred in doing
so against the Manager.
Para 2




Date: /04/2014 _______________________
Advocates for the Defendants

g:\rishi sharma\list of authorities rajpipla.docx