AI Overview...
-
Liability of Responsible Persons - Under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, individuals in charge of a company at the time an offence is committed can be held liable if they are responsible for food safety violations. This includes managing directors, chairpersons, or persons responsible for conduct of business, especially if they were in charge when the offence occurred Ahammed Naseef S/o. Soopy Vs State Of Kerala - Kerala, Managing Director, M/s. Tops Security Limited VS State of Himachal Pradesh - Crimes, NEETHU BABU
vs
STATE OF KERALA - Kerala, Rohit Jawa, Son of Ved Prakash Jawa, Represented By The Managing Director vs State of Karnataka, Through Food Safety Officer, Represented By State Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Karnataka - Karnataka. -
Vicarious and Individual Liability - The law emphasizes personal responsibility; a person cannot be held vicariously liable solely because they are associated with the company unless they were directly responsible or in charge during the offence. For example, vicarious liability is not established in the absence of prosecution against the company itself S. K. Shukla VS State of M. P. - Crimes.
-
Timing of Offence and Responsibility - The timing of the offence and the individual's role at that time are crucial. Resignation before detection does not automatically absolve responsibility if the person was in charge when the offence was committed NEETHU BABU
vs
STATE OF KERALA - Kerala. -
Prosecution and Court Proceedings - Court cognizance is taken based on the date the offence was committed and the responsible person's role at that time. Proceedings can be quashed if the responsible individual was not in charge during the offence or if proper prosecution against the company is absent Manik Hiru Jhangiani VS State of M. P. - Madhya Pradesh, Rohit Jawa, Son of Ved Prakash Jawa, Represented By The Managing Director vs State of Karnataka, Through Food Safety Officer, Represented By State Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Karnataka - Karnataka.
-
Specific Cases and Offences - Violations such as exceeding pesticide residues, selling unsafe food, or non-conformance with standards are prosecutable under the Act. Responsibility extends to those responsible for food safety measures and compliance Hemant VS State of Maharashtra, through Food Safety Officer, Food and Drug Administration - Bombay, Abhilash N. , Son Of Narayanan VS State Of Kerala - Kerala.
Analysis and Conclusion:
Responsibility for food safety offences under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, primarily lies with persons in charge at the time of the offence, such as managing directors or officials responsible for conduct of business. Vicarious liability is limited unless the individual was directly responsible or the company itself is prosecuted. Timing, role at the time of offence, and proper prosecution against the company are critical factors in establishing liability.
Search Results for "Food and Safety if a Company Committed an Offence who is Responssible"
2025 Supreme(Online)(KER) 8402 • India - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P. G. Ajithkumar, J
the Food Safety Act. ... for the offences committed by the managing partner - Complaint quashed against partners not in charge of the business. ... ... ... Issues: The main issue was whether the partners could be held liable for the offences committed by the managing partner without ... - (1) Where an offence under this Act which has been committed by a company, every person who at the time the offence was #HL_ST....
• India - Crimes
RAJIV SHARMA
averment in complaint that accused No.1 and 2 were in-charge and were responsible to company in conduct of business of company—No ... averment that violation of the Act had been committed with their consent or connivance or was attributable to any neglect on their ... under and Order of summoning by Magistrate—Petitioner accused No.1 and 2 were the Chairman and Managing Director of Company respectively—No ... time when the offence was committed by the compa....
2016 0 Supreme(MP) 245 • India - Madhya Pradesh
JARAT KUMAR JAIN
Food Safety Standards Act, 2006 -- Ss.42, 52, 89 and 97(1)(2)(3)(4) -- Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 -- Ss.2(ix)(k), ... committed on 29.11.2010 -- and Court took cognizance on 12.8.2011 -- Court rightly took cognizance for offence under -- application ... In the present case the alleged offence has been committed on 29.11.2010 and the Court has taken the cognizance on 12.8.2011, therefore ... The alleged offence committed#HL_EN....
2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 30559 • India - High Court of Kerala
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, J
Fact of the Case: The petitioner, accused in a food safety violation case, claimed she was no longer responsible for ... Liability - Food Safety - Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 - Sections 3(1)(zz)(xii), 26(1)(2)(i), 27(1), 59(i), 66 - The court ... Issues: Whether the petitioner, having resigned before the offense detection, could be held liable for the alleged food safety ... The learned counsel would als....
• India - Crimes
G.S.AHLUWALIA
The applicant cannot be held vicariously liable for offence committed by the Company in absence of prosecution of Company. ... of applicant in absence of manufacturing company impleaded as accused—Applicant cannot be held vicariously liable for offence committed ... Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006—Sections 3(zz)(iii), 26(2)(i) r/w 59 and 66—Sample of packed “Soya chunks” manufactured by a ... Offences by compan....
2022 0 Supreme(Ker) 1008 • India - Kerala
ZIYAD RAHMAN A. A.
and a person responsible for the matters relating to food safety, for the purpose of attracting culpability under the proviso to ... Food Safety and Standards (Contaminants, Toxins & Residues) Third Amendment Regulation, 2018 - Section 66 ... , Sections 27(1) and Section 50, 51, 3(1) (zz) (iii), (v) – Proceedings – Food safety - 2nd respondent purchased 2 Kg apple from ... Where an offence under this Act which has been committed by ....
• India - Crimes
SANJAY DHAR
and sale of such food article by accused is prohibited – Offence under FSS Act can be stated to have been committed on the date ... Limitation period – At the time of lifting of sample, it cannot be stated that offence has been committed by accused person – It ... Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 – Section 26(1)(2)(i)(ii) read with Section 42 – Criminal Procedure ... From a perusal of the aforesaid provisions, it is clear that when an offence has ....
2017 0 Supreme(Bom) 1407 • India - Bombay
V.M.DESHPANDE
, and sellers under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. ... for the non-conformity of the food product with the standards under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. ... Safety and Standards Act, 2006. ... Where an offence under this Act which has been committed by a company, every person who at the time the offence was committed was in charge of, and was responsible to, ....
2025 0 Supreme(Kar) 108 • India - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
J.M.KHAZI
(A) Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 - Sections 51 and 59 - Criminal proceedings quashed against Managing Director of company ... The Food Safety Officer found pesticide residue exceeding safe limits. ... safety violations concerning samples of biscuits. ... In the Food, Safety and Standards Act also, when every person who at the time the offence was committed was incharge of and responsible to....
• India - Crimes
R.K.GAUBA
, every person who, at the time when offence was committed, was in-charge of and was responsible to, said company for conduct of ... was also responsible for arranging all prescribed safety measured under Rules—Section 47 read with Section 53 of Building and Construction ... which, in present case, is employer– establishment which was to make compliances for safety measures to be put in position—Construction ... Offences by companies.—(1) Where an #H....
Filter by Legal Phrase
