SM 1 11.apl.707.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 707 OF 2011 Shi. Kapil Wadhawan and another ....Applicants Versus The State of Maharashtra ....Respondent ____________ Mr. Shirish Gupte, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Ranjit Shetty with Mr. LuckeyRaj Indorkar i/b M/s. Hariani and Co. for the Applicants. Mr. A. S. Shitole, APP for the Respondent-State. CORAM: B. R. GAVAI, J. DATED : 27TH JULY, 2011. P.C.: Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. The applicant is being prosecuted for the offences punishable under Section 16 (1) (a)(i)(ii) and Section 17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. 3. The accused no. 1 is a company. The applicants being the Directors of the said company is sought to be prosecuted for the offence committed by the main accused by taking recourse to section 17 of the Food Adulteration Act. The issue is no more res integra. The Apex Court in the case of Pepsico India Holdings (P) Ltd. V. Food Inspector, (2011) 1SCC 176 has held thus: “In a complaint against a company and its Directors, the complainant has to indicate in the complaint itself as to whether the Directors concerned were either in charge of or responsible to the Company for its day-to- day management, or whether they were responsible to SM 2 11.apl.707.11 the Company for the conduct of its business. A mere bald statement that a person was a Director of the Company against which certain allegations had been made is not sufficient to make such Director liable in the absence of any specific allegations regarding his role in the management of the Company. Having considered the matter in its totality and also having regard to the fact that a manager had been nominated under Section 17(2) of the 1954 Act to be a person in charge of and responsible to the Company for the conduct of its business, the appeals are allowed.” 4. The perusal of the complaint would reveal that the allegation against the applicants is that he being the Directors of the company are responsible to the day to day affairs of the company. There is nothing in the complaint to show that a specific role is attributed to the applicants as to how they are responsible for the day-to-day affairs of the company. 5. Rule is, therefore, made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) qua petitioner. (B. R. GAVAI, J.)