1 530.11-apl IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 530 OF 2011 Ajay Vazirani. ... Applicant. V/s. The State of Maharashtra. ... Respondent. Shirish Gupte, Senior Advocate i/b. M/s.Sonal Doshi & Co. for the applicant. Ms.A.T.Jhaveri, APP for the State. CORAM: B.R.GAVAI, J. DATED : 27th June 2011. P.C. : Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of 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 applicant being the Director 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) 1 SCC 176 has held thus: 2 530.11-apl 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.” 4. The perusal of the complaint would reveal that the allegation against the applicant is that he being the Director of the company is 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 applicant as to how he is responsible for the day-to-day affairs of the company. 3. Rule is, therefore, made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) qua petitioner. (B.R.GAVAI, J.)