As per the case facts this appeal challenged a High Court order that rejected a petition to quash a complaint filed under the Punjab Land Preservation Act The High Court ... had upheld the complaint The appeal to the Supreme Court was to determine if the complaint actually showed any offense by the appellants The question arose as to whether a plain reading of the complaint lodged by the Range Forest Officer disclosed the commission of any offense under the relevant sections of the Act and whether individuals specifically a Managing Director can be held vicariously liable for offenses committed by a company without specific statutory provision Finally the Supreme Court decided there was no basis to try the appellants for the alleged offense allowing the appeal and quashing the complaint and the order taking cognizance It reiterated that individuals like a Director are not vicariously liable for a company's offenses unless explicitly stated by law However the authorities remain free to pursue action against the company for any breaches of license conditions