Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
SANDEEP KUMAR
TTK Healthcare Limited, Son of Shri S. Narasimhan, through authorised representative Mr. N Kannan, S/o. Shri S. Narasimhan – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. correction in cause title and representation established. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. allegations of the complainant regarding lack of approval and malfeasance noted. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. importance of a magistrate's application of mind in cognizance. (Para 8 , 12) |
| 4. allegations made in the complaints highlight business disputes. (Para 9) |
| 5. clarification of product liability and involvement of manufacturers. (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 6. accusations against the petitioner imply business disputes. (Para 16) |
| 7. absence of specific allegations against petitioners supports complaint dismissal. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 8. complaint quashed in interests of justice. (Para 25 , 26) |
ORDER :
(Sandeep Kumar, J.)
The office is directed to make necessary correction in the cause title of the petition as TTK Healthcare Limited is being represented by the authorized signatory and therefore, son of Shri S Narasimhan should be deleted from the cause title. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State.
2. The pre
A complaint must contain specific allegations against individuals to warrant criminal proceedings; vague and unsupported accusations represent civil disputes and cannot sustain a criminal charge.
Directors liable under Drugs Act Section 34 if complaint specifically avers their involvement in business conduct via emails and records, notwithstanding competent person appointment.
The court upheld the interpretation of misbranding under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, making company directors liable for offenses under corporate conduct.
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.
A stockist cannot be held liable for drug quality violations if not impleaded in the prosecution, highlighting the necessity of prosecuting the manufacturer under the relevant legal framework.
At the stage of framing charges, the court should only consider the allegations made in the complaint and the supporting documents. The court should not delve into the evidence or conduct a mini-tria....
Under Section 34 Drugs and Cosmetics Act, company offence liability presumes against nominated responsible person and firm; other officers require specific role allegations, not mere designations.
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
