Section 49 explained: this guide covers what it means, who it applies to, the step-by-step process, documents required, fees, due dates and penalties in India — so you can stay compliant with confidence and avoid costly mistakes.
Section 49 decides who answers when a company commits an offence under the Act. The company is deemed guilty, and so is the "person responsible": the director the company has formally nominated to the legal metrology authority, or, if none is nominated, every person in charge of and responsible for the business at the time. A company can therefore limit exposure for most of its directors by nominating one; our director nomination service covers the filing. Section 49 is not amended by the Jan Vishwas Act, 2023 or the Jan Vishwas Act, 2026.
When a company commits an offence, the company and the "person responsible" are deemed guilty. The person responsible is the director nominated under section 49(2); if nobody is nominated, every person in charge of and responsible for the business when the offence was committed. A person escapes if he proves the offence occurred without his knowledge and that he exercised all due diligence. Other directors, managers, secretaries or officers are liable only if the offence was with their consent or connivance or is attributable to their neglect. The court may order publication of the conviction at the company's expense, after appeals are over. Neither Jan Vishwas Act amends section 49.
Section 49(1): who is deemed guilty
Where an offence under the Act is committed by a company:
| Who | Condition |
|---|---|
| The person responsible nominated under section 49(2) | If a nomination is in place |
| Every person in charge of, and responsible to, the company for the conduct of its business at the time of the offence | Where no person has been nominated |
| The company | Always |
All are "deemed to be guilty of the offence" and liable to be proceeded against and punished. The proviso gives a defence: no such person is liable to punishment if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge and that he exercised all due diligence to prevent it. Both limbs are to be proved by him: lack of knowledge and due diligence. The Act does not say what due diligence involves, so it is judged on facts: training, written procedures, records of checks, prompt action when lapses surface.
The Explanation defines "company" as any body corporate and including a firm or other association of individuals, and "director", in relation to a firm, as a partner, excluding nominated directors, honorary directors and Government nominated directors. So partnership firms and LLP-type bodies are inside the section; a proprietor of an unincorporated business is not a "company" on the text.
Section 49(2): the nomination
Any company may, by order in writing, authorise any of its directors to exercise all powers and take all steps necessary or expedient to prevent the company committing any offence under the Act. The company may give notice to the Director (Legal Metrology), the concerned Controller or an officer authorised by the Controller, in the prescribed form and manner, that it has nominated that director as the person responsible, along with the written consent of the director.
The prescribed form and manner come from the General Rules, rule 29: every company shall inform the Director, the concerned Controller or his authorised officer, by notice in duplicate, in the format specified in the Thirteenth Schedule, giving the name and address of the director after obtaining his written consent, nominated under section 49(2) to be in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company or any establishment, branch or unit. The Thirteenth Schedule is listed in the index of the General Rules; our scanned copy of the Schedule text is not reliably readable, so use the gazette or the department's current format rather than relying on a description here.
Read the statute first; the practical filing follows from it.
Separate nominations for separate units
The Explanation to section 49(2) says that where a company has different establishments, branches or units, different persons may be nominated for each; the person nominated for an establishment, branch or unit is deemed the person responsible for that establishment, branch or unit. A company with several factories or warehouses can align liability with actual control.
Section 49(3): how long the nomination lasts
The nominated person continues as the person responsible until the earliest of:
- further notice cancelling the nomination is received from the company by the Director, Controller or authorised officer;
- he ceases to be a director; or
- he makes a written request to the Director, Controller or officer, with intimation to the company, to cancel it, which must be complied with.
Two provisos: a person who ceases to be a director must intimate that fact to the authority; and where the person asks for cancellation, the authority shall not cancel with effect from a date earlier than the date of the request. The practical point: a director who resigns from the nominated role should write to the authority the same day and keep proof of delivery.
Section 49(4): the others
Despite the above, if an offence by a company is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to the neglect of, any director, manager, secretary or other officer, not being the nominated person, that person is also deemed guilty and liable. So a nomination does not shield a director who connived or was negligent. Sub-section (4) speaks of it being "proved" that the offence was committed with consent or connivance or is attributable to neglect; the proviso in sub-section (1) speaks of the person "proving" his own lack of knowledge and due diligence.
Section 49(5) to (7): publication of conviction
- (5) When a company is convicted, the court may cause the company's name and place of business, the nature of the contravention, the fact of conviction and other particulars it considers appropriate to be published at the company's expense in a newspaper or other manner directed.
- (6) No publication until the period for appeal against the court's order has expired without an appeal, or an appeal filed has been disposed of.
- (7) The publication expenses are recoverable from the company as if it were a fine.
It is power "competent for the court", not automatic.
The layers
| Layer | Section 49 |
|---|---|
| 1. As enacted in 2010 | The text above |
| 2. Jan Vishwas Act, 2023 (in force; item 40) | Not amended. The item lists sections 25, 27, 28, 29, 31, 34, 35 and 48 |
| 3. Jan Vishwas Act, 2026 (Act 8 of 2026; in force only from the date the Central Government notifies; item 66) | Not amended. The item lists sections 2(ea), 15, 23, 25 to 32, 34 to 41, 45 to 48, 50, 52 and 53, not section 49 |
Why this matters in practice
| Situation | Who is exposed |
|---|---|
| Company has nominated Director A for the factory | Company and Director A; other directors only under 49(4) |
| Company has made no nomination | Company and every person in charge and responsible for the business |
| Director A resigns and the company does not file a fresh nomination | Nomination ends on cessation as director (49(3)(ii)); after that the no-nomination rule applies |
| Two units with separate nominees | Each nominee for his own unit |
Example 1. A packaged-goods company with three directors has not nominated anyone. An officer finds packages without the required declarations. All three directors, if each was in charge of and responsible for the business, are deemed guilty unless each proves no knowledge and due diligence.
Example 2. The same company nominates Director B with her written consent for its one plant, files the notice and keeps the acknowledgment. The same lapse occurs. The company and Director B are deemed guilty; Directors A and C are exposed only if connivance or neglect is proved against them.
Need help with director nomination?
Nomination is a short filing, but the consent, the format and the record of delivery all matter later. Our director nomination team can help prepare the board authorisation, the consent and the notice in duplicate. Bring the company's details, the director's particulars and the list of establishments and units.
Key takeaways
- The company and the person responsible are deemed guilty when a company commits an offence under the Act.
- The person responsible is the nominated director, or if none, every person in charge and responsible for the business.
- The defence is no knowledge plus all due diligence, to be proved by the person claiming it.
- Nomination is by written order, written consent and notice in duplicate in the Thirteenth Schedule format (General Rules, rule 29); units can have different nominees.
- Section 49 is not amended by the 2023 or 2026 Jan Vishwas Act.
Read next
- Section 48 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009: Compounding of offences
- Section 50 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009: Appeals
- Section 36 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009: Penalty for non-standard packages
- Who Must Comply with Legal Metrology Act
Disclaimer: Based on the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 (Act 1 of 2010) as enacted, read with the Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2023 (in force) and the Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2026 (in force only from the date the Central Government notifies); section 49 is not amended by either Act. Also based on the Legal Metrology (General) Rules, 2011 (rule 29), as on 30 September 2026. State Legal Metrology rules, later amendments and notifications change; verify the current position before acting.