Vicarious Liability Cannot Be Imputated to Partners Without Specific Allegations of Personal Involvement in Day-to-Day Management

On October 25, 1996, the Food Inspector visited 'Mirch Masala Restaurant' in Surat and found the kitchen unhygienic

A sample of 600g of curd was taken from a 3kg storage pot

The public analyst report dated November 7, 1996, revealed a fat content of 2.2% against the required 6%, indicating adulteration

A complaint was filed against the partnership firm (Respondent No. 1), its partners (Respondent Nos. 2.1–2.3), and its nominees (Respondent Nos. 3–4)

The trial court (JMFC, Surat) acquitted the accused on January 3, 2002, citing the prosecution's failure to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt

The Surat Municipal Corporation appealed this acquittal

1. Whether the partners and nominees of the firm could be held vicariously liable for the offences committed by the partnership firm without specific evidence of their active involvement in the day-to-day business

2. Whether the unexplained delay of nine months in filing the complaint after receipt of the analyst’s report and the failure to prove the partnership details were fatal to the prosecution's case

Section 17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (PFA Act), which governs offences by companies and firms, stipulating that only persons in charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of its business at the time of the offence are liable

The precedent Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. Food Inspector, which established that a complainant must specifically allege the director's/partner's role in day-to-day management to invoke vicarious liability

Sanjay Dutt v. State of Haryana, reinforcing that vicarious liability of directors/partners is not automatic and requires a personal action connecting them to the company's liability

The court found that while a photocopy of the partnership deed was produced, the complainant failed to prove the roles of Respondents 2.1 to 4 as partners or nominees through original documentation

The prosecution failed to meet the requirements of Section 17 of the PFA Act; the complaint lacked specific allegations that the individual partners were in charge of or responsible for the firm's day-to-day conduct or the storage of the specific adulterated curd

The court noted that vicarious liability cannot be imputed merely by virtue of a person's status as a partner

The court observed a significant, unjustified delay of nine months between the receipt of the lab report and the filing of the complaint, which weakened the prosecution's stance

The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the acquittal of the respondents

In the absence of evidence showing direct involvement or personal knowledge of the adulteration, the findings of the trial court were deemed a "possible view" that did not warrant interference under the limited scope of an appeal against acquittal