Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M.NAGAPRASANNA
Seema Chandrashekar W/o M. Chandrashekar – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
ORDER :
1. Petitioners-accused Nos.3 and 4 are at the doors of this Court calling in question an order dated 16-12-2023 passed by the Special Court for Economic Offences, Bengaluru, taking cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 27 (c), 28 and 28-A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’ for short). The petitioners, as a consequence, have sought for quashment of the complaint and the entire proceedings in C.C.No.123 of 2023.
2. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows:
2.1. A complaint comes to be registered on 14-12-2023 against these petitioners among others, alleging that the accused No.1-Company by name M/s. Mirana Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., has manufactured and further sold drugs without having drug manufacturing licences and accused No.2, is the Director of the said Company and the authorized person responsible for the day-to-day activities. Against these petitioners it is alleged that, petitioner No.1/accused No.3 being the Proprietor and the registered Pharmacist of M/s. Sree Manjunath Medicals, Bangalore and petitioner No.2/accused No.4 being the person in-charge of the said firm, were engaged in purchase, stock and sale of Mirakul sanitiz
Directors of a company not involved in drug manufacturing cannot be held liable under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act absent specific evidence of their responsibility for the conduct of business.
Non-compliance with statutory provisions and resignation of the accused from the company absolved him of liability, leading to the quashing of the proceedings.
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....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for specific allegations to establish vicarious liability and the importance of following mandatory provisions before launching prosecutio....
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....
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 clear allegations of a director's responsibility for the company's conduct; mere directorship is insufficient.
Quash of Criminal proceedings - once it is shown that the right of accused to adduce evidence in controversion of the Government Analyst’s report is defeated due to acts and omission of the Drugs Ins....
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
