JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The accused-petitioners have filed this Criminal Misc.Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash and set aside the order of cognizance passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bundi in Criminal Case No.120/2013 and the criminal proceedings arising thereunder to the extent of petitioners. 3. Brief relevant facts for the disposal of this petition are that a complaint came to be filed against petitioners and co-accused for the offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act") with the averment that Soyabean Refined Oil manufactured by M/s Parakh Foods Limited, one of the accused, was found to be misbranded. The present petitioners were arrayed as accused in the complaint on the ground that they at the relevant time were Directors of the aforesaid company. 4. Inviting attention of the Court towards Section 17 of the Act, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there are no allegations/averments in the complaint as regards the role of petitioners in respect of the alleged offence and there is no allegation that the petitioners were in charge and responsible for the conduct of the business of the aforesaid accused-company or were also responsible for day to day functioning of the company. It was further submitted that there is no material on record to show that the offence was committed with the consent/connivance of the petitioners or even due to any negligence on their part. It was also submitted that it is well settled legal position that Directors of a company cannot be made accused only by the reason that they are directors of the company. 5. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the case of Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. Food Inspector & Anr. reported in JT 2010 (12) 531. 6. On the other hand, it was submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the ground raised on behalf of the petitioners is a question of fact which can be decided only after parties produce their evidence during trial and the same cannot be considered and decided at this preliminary stage. 7. reported in JT 2010 (12) 531. 6. On the other hand, it was submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the ground raised on behalf of the petitioners is a question of fact which can be decided only after parties produce their evidence during trial and the same cannot be considered and decided at this preliminary stage. 7. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and the material made available for my perusal as well as the relevant legal provisions and the case law. 8. In the case of Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd.(supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court after taking into consideration several previous decisions has held that it is now well established that in a complaint against the company and its Directors, the complainant has to indicate in the complaint itself as to whether the Directors concerned were either in charge or responsible 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 allegation regarding his role in the management of the company. 9. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the petitioners have been arrayed as accused only by the reason that they were Directors of the aforesaid accused-company at the time of commission of the offence and no specific role has been alleged against them. Material disclosed in the complaint does not create any vicarious liability against petitioners. Hence, order of Magistrate taking cognizance of offence against petitioners and issuing process to summon them and continuous of aforesaid criminal proceedings against petitioners is of no legal significance and in such circumstances, to prosecute the petitioners in the case will be nothing but an abuse of process of law. 10. Consequently, the criminal misc.petition is allowed and the order of cognizance as well as the aforesaid criminal proceedings to the extent of petitioners are quashed and set aside. The stay application also stands disposed of.Petition Allowed. *******