Facts: The Inspector of Legal Metrology filed a criminal complaint against the applicant, an independent director of Glaxo Smithkline Consumer Healthcare Limited, alleging violations of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 and the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011, specifically concerning the absence of manufacturer details on sealed packages of "Sensodyne Ultra-Sensitive Fresh Gel" found at Walmart India Private Ltd. The Magistrate took cognizance and issued process against the applicant.
Procedural Posture: The applicant filed a criminal application in the High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him, arguing that the complaint lacked specific allegations connecting him to the alleged offense.
Issue: Can criminal proceedings against a director of a company be sustained under the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, when the complaint does not contain specific averments regarding the director's role in the day-to-day affairs of the company or their responsibility for the alleged offense, and the company itself is not named as an accused?
Holding: No, the criminal proceedings against the director cannot be sustained. The High Court allowed the application and quashed the proceedings against the applicant.
Reasoning: The Court reasoned that Section 49(1) of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 provides a mechanism for fixing vicarious liability on directors, but the complaint lacked specific averments attributing any role to the applicant in the commission of the crime. The Court emphasized that a mere designation as a director is insufficient to establish liability without demonstrating their involvement in the company's day-to-day management or responsibility for the conduct of its business. Citing Pepsico India Holdings Private Limited .Vs. Food Inspector and another; reported in (2011) 1 SCC 176, the Court reiterated that the complainant must indicate whether the directors were in charge of or responsible for the company's day-to-day management. Furthermore, the company itself was not named as an accused. The court also noted that the Magistrate failed to record his satisfaction about the prima facie case against the applicant before issuing summons.