LexSTATE OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH PROSECUTING OFFICER, INSECTICIDES, GOVERNMENT OF NCT, DELHI versus RAJIV KHURANA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2010] 9 S.C.R. 387 STATE OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH PROSECUTING A OFFICER, INSECTICIDES, GOVERNMENT OF NCT, DELHI v. RAJIV KHURANA (Criminal Appeal no. 1380 of 2010) JULY 30, 2010 [DALVEER BHANDARI AND K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, JJ.) Insecticides Act, 1968 - s.33 - Offences by companies - Vicarious liability - Held: A person is vicariously liable for commission of an offence under the Act if at the relevant time he was incharge of and was also responsible to the company B c for conduct of its business - Mere allegation in the complaint D that the accused was director of the company and nothing to indicate, even prima facie, that he was incharge of the company and also responsible to the company for the conduct of its business would not be enough to hold him vicariously liable - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 482. E F The prosecution case was that the product manufactured by the company was not found to be in conformity with the prescribed ISi specification. On the basis of the communication by the company that the respondent was its Regional Technical Director and was responsible for the quality of the product, criminal proceedings were initiated against the respondent. The trial court issued summons against the respondent. The High Court allowed the petition filed by the respondent under section 482, Cr.P.C. and quashed the summons. G The order of High Court was challenged by State in the instant appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court 387 H 388 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 9 S.C.R. A HELD: It is imperative to specifically aver in the complaint that the accused was in charge of and was responsible for the conduct of business of the company. Unless clear averments are specifically incorporated in the complaint, the respondent cannot be compelled to B face the rigmarole of a criminal trial. The complaint showed that except a bald statement that the respondent was director of the manufacturer, there was no other allegation to indicate, even prima facie, that he was incharge of the company and also responsible to the C company for the conduct of its business. In view of clear legal position, there was no infirmity in the impugned judgment. [Paras 13, 21, 22] [398-A-B; 393-F-H; 394-A; 398-C] S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla & Another D (2005) 8 SCO 89; Monaben Ketanbhai Shah & Another v. State of Gujarat & Others (2004) 7 SCC 15; Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi & Others (1983) 1 SCC 1; State of Haryana v. Brij Lal Mittal & Others (1998) 5 SCC 343; K.P. G. Nair v. Jindal Menthol India Ltd. (2001) E 10 SCC 218; Katta Sujatha (Smt.) v. Fertilizers & Chemicals Travancore Ltd. & Another (2002) 7 SCC 655; Sabitha Ramamurthy and Another v. R.B.S. Channabasavaradhya (2006) 10 SCC 581; K.K. Ahujd v. V.K. Vora and Another (2009) 10 sec 48 - relied on. F Case Law Reference: (2005) 8 sec 89 relied on Paras 7, 15 (2004) 1 sec 15 relied on Para 1 O G (1983) 1 sec 1 relied on Para 12 (1998) 5 sec 343 relied on Para 13 (2001) 10 sec 218 relied on Para 14 H (2002) 7 sec 655 relied on Para 14 STATE OF NCT OF DELHI v. RAJIV KHURANA 389 (2006) 1 o sec 581 (2009) 1 o sec 48 relied on relied on Para 16 Paras 17, 19 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 1380 of 2010. From the Judgment & Order dated 02.01.2008 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Crl. M. C. No. 2639 of 2006. A B P.P. Malhotra, ASG, T.S. Doabia, Rachana Srivastava, Sadhana Sandhu, M.D. Doabia, D.S. Mahra for the Appellant. c Siddharth Luthra, Mti Sharma, Kalyan Roy, Anurag, Ashwani Kumar for the Respondent. The Judgmert of the Court was delivered by DALVEER BHANDARI, J. 1. Leave granted. D 2. This appeal has been filed by the appellant State of National Capital Territory of Delhi against the judgment of the High Court of Delhi dated 2.1.2008 in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 2639 of 2006 whereby the High Court has quashed E the summons issued by the trial court. 3. The appellant submitted that the Company had specifically stated in its letter dated 19.1.2000 that respondent Rajiv Khurana was the Regional Technical Director handling the F quality control in the company. The relevant portion of the said letter is reproduced as under: "We shall be happy to cooperate with you in all such quality issues about our Mortem product range. Our quality control is handled by Mr. Rajeev Khurana, Regional Technical
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.