SSK/905 1 apl .1151.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1151 OF 2011. Mrs. Aruna Rajesh Wadhwan & anr. ....Applicants Versus The State of Maharastra ...Respondent Mr. Shirish Gupte, senior counsel a/w. Mr. Ranjit Shetty, Mr. Lukyraj Indorkar and Mr. Amit Iyer i/b. M/s.Hariani & Co., advocates for the applicants. Mr. Rajesh More, APP for the State. CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J. DATED : 1st DECEMBER, 2011. P.C.: Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Mr. More, learned APP waives service on behalf of respondent no.1. By consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. The applicants are being prosecuted for the offences punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i)(ii) and Section 17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. Accused No.4 is the Company and Accused No.1 is the Manager of the said Company. The applicants being the Directors of the said company are 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 SSK/905 2 apl .1151.11 in the case of Pepsico India Holdings Private Limited Versus Food Inspector & Anr. Reported in (2011) 1 SCC 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 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.” 3. Perusal of the complaint and especially Para (3) thereof, makes the following averment “Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the Directors of Accused No.4”. The applicants are original accused nos. 2 & 3. Except describing their position as Directors, nothing has been alleged further. It is also not alleged that the applicants in their capacity as the Directors are in charge and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company. The complaint does not show any specific role of the present applicants as to how they are responsible for the day-to-day affairs of the company. Rule is, therefore, made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) qua the applicants. SSK/905 3 apl .1151.11 4. All the concerned parties to act upon a copy of this order duly authenticated by the Registry. (RANJIT MORE, J.)