Back
VIKRAM NATH, SANDEEP MEHTA
Shailyamanyu Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts related to the drug's distribution and company's involvement. (Para 3) |
| 2. background of the case and accusations (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. arguments presented by the appellant (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 16 , 17) |
| 4. court's reasoning on vicarious liability (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 5. court's decision on appellant's prosecution (Para 30) |
| 6. final judgment and order (Para 31 , 32) |
JUDGMENT :
Mehta, J.
1. Heard.
2. Leave granted.
3. The instant appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 12th April, 2023 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay1[Hereinafter, being referred to as the ‘High Court’] whereby the Criminal Application No. 1422 of 2019 filed by the appellant under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 19732[For short “CrPC”] came to be rejected.
4. By way of the said petition filed under Section 482 CrPC, the appellant had challenged the order dated 3rd December, 2016 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate 15th Court, Mazgaon, Mumbai in Criminal Case No. 1500201/SW/2016, taking cognizance of the offences under Section 18 B punishable under Section 28A, Section 18 (a)(vi) and Section 22 (1)(cca)
Prosecution of a Non-Executive Director for corporate offences requires specific averments of involvement; absence of such averments renders the prosecution unjustified.
Vicarious liability under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 arises if the person was in charge and responsible for the day-to-day affairs of the company at the time of the offence, and the company mu....
Vicarious liability under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act requires the person to be in charge and responsible for the day-to-day affairs of the company, and specific allegations against a director regard....
Vicarious liability under Drugs Act Section 34 requires specific averments that directors were in charge of and responsible for day-to-day business and supervision; mere directorship insufficient, bu....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that specific and clear averments regarding the role and responsibilities of the accused in the commission of the offence are necessary to establis....
Vicarious liability under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act requires clear allegations of a director's responsibility for the company's conduct; mere directorship is insufficient.
Vicarious liability under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act requires specific averments in the complaint to establish that individuals were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business at t....
Specific averments showing a Director's responsibility for the company's conduct of business are necessary to establish vicarious liability under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.
Directors liable under Drugs Act Section 34 if complaint specifically avers their involvement in business conduct via emails and records, notwithstanding competent person appointment.
Directors cannot be held liable for a company's criminal acts without specific allegations of their involvement; mere directorship is insufficient for establishing vicarious liability.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
