Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI, J
Daffohils Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
Order :
1. By way of filing this instant Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner seeks quashing of proceedings in Criminal Complaint No. 1191/2021 {CNR No. RJCH020008502021} pending before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Churu, Rajasthan, titled State of Rajasthan through Manoj Kumar Garwhal, Drugs Control Officer, Churu vs. M/s Shree Sai Medicos & Ors. The petitioner also prays for setting aside the order dated 12.11.2021, whereby the court below has taken cognizance of offences under Sections 18(A)(1) , 18(A)(IV) , 16(1)(A), and 18B read with Sections 27(D) and 28(A) of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940, and issued process against the petitioner.
2. The brief facts of the present case is that as per the averments in the impugned complaint, on 26.02.2015, the respondent, Drugs Control Officer, Churu, collected samples of the drug “Defalcort-6 Tablets, Batch No. AT080695” from the premises of Sai Medicos, Churu (Accused No. 1). The said drug, manufactured by Adwin Pharma, was sent for analysis to the Government Analyst, Jaipur, who, vide report dated 21.08.2015, declared the drug as “Not of Standard Quality” due to non-conformi
Criminal liability for partners requires specific allegations of responsibility; mere designation is insufficient, and complaints may be barred by limitation.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of adhering to the limitation period for filing a complaint and the necessity of impleading responsible persons in a complaint again....
A prima facie case may arise from additional documents, supporting liability despite insufficient initial allegations.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that for vicarious liability under Section 34 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, it is essential to prove that the directors or partners were in....
Liability under Section 34 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act requires specific allegations of being in charge and responsible for the conduct of the business, which were absent in this case.
Unexplained inordinate delay can be fatal to a prosecution case, and individuals involved in the day-to-day affairs of a company can be held liable for contraventions under the Drugs and Cosmetics Ac....
The court established that former directors cannot be held vicariously liable for offences committed after their tenure, and highlighted multiple procedural lapses that rendered the prosecution unsus....
The court emphasized the seriousness of the allegations and directed the trial court to conclude the trial within 6 months, despite acknowledging the delay in the proceedings.
A complaint against a company director must explicitly allege their responsibility for the company's conduct to be legally maintainable under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.
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
