The Supreme Court’s order in Pepsico India Holdings v. Food Inspector, quashing the prosecution of Pepsico under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 can be found here. On the issue of statutory criminal liability of directors and the averments in the complaint, the Court reiterated the stance taken in S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals and noted:
"It is now well established that 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."