### Manager cannot be held vicariously liable for PDS violations primarily attributed to a salesperson.

On 06.04.2016, an FIR (Crime No. 12/2016) was registered against the petitioner under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act based on a complaint by the Civil Supply Officer.

The Collector and SDO had previously ordered prosecution alleging that between December 2014 and May 2015, the petitioner—acting as a Manager of a Fair Price Shop operated by a Society—failed to distribute food-grains and misappropriated approximately Rs. 4,72,000.

The petitioner moved the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash the FIR, arguing he was merely a Manager, not the salesperson, and that no specific overt acts were attributed to him.

1. Whether the criminal proceedings against the petitioner constitute an abuse of the process of law in the absence of specific allegations of individual overt acts.

2. Whether a Manager of a Society-run Fair Price Shop can be held vicariously liable for violations primarily attributable to a “salesperson” under the M.P. Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2015.

The Court applied Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which grants inherent powers to High Courts to quash proceedings to prevent abuse of process or to secure the ends of justice.

Substantively, it examined Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, in conjunction with Clauses 10, 11, 13, 15, and 16 of the M.P. Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2015.

The Court applied the principle that vicarious liability cannot be fastened in criminal law unless specifically provided for by statute or supported by evidence of active involvement.

The Court observed that the M.P. PDS (Control) Order, 2015, specifically Clauses 10 and 11, casts duties primarily upon the “salesperson” and not the Manager.

Upon reviewing the FIR and the sanction order, the Court found that the allegations were "general and omnibus," failing to attribute any specific refusal to distribute commodities or manipulation of records to the petitioner in his individual capacity.

The Court noted that since the shop was operated by a Society, the petitioner could not be held vicariously liable for the shop's operational failures without a statutory provision for such liability.

Furthermore, the Court found the allegations to be vague and unsupported by material collected prior to the FIR, concluding that the essential ingredients of the charged offences were not satisfied.

The Court granted the petition and ordered the quashment of FIR Crime No. 12/2016 registered at Police Station Bharoli for offences under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.