Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
FARJAND ALI
Ranu Bhargav S/o SH. Amerjeet Bhargav – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, through drugs Controller Officer, Bhilwara, Rajasthan – Respondent
Order :
FARJAND ALI, J.
1. The petitions have the following prayer:
Quash and set aside the order dated 12.01.2013 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara, in Criminal Case No. 30/2013, whereby cognizance has been taken against the petitioner for the alleged offences under Sections 16(1)(a), 17(6), 18(a)(xi), 18(a)(vi), and 18(c) read with Rules 96 and 12(2), and punishable under Sections 27(b)(ii) and 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940; the case presently pending before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Bhilwara, as Criminal Regular Case No. 378/2013.
2. These are the grounds raised in relation to Section 34 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, inter alia:
That the impugned order dated 12.01.2013 is vitiated by non-application of judicial mind and suffers from a mechanical, cyclostyled approach devoid of analytical reasoning, being predicated on conjecture and surmise rather than cogent facts or the settled legal position. It is further contended that the complaint and annexed documents, even upon a prima facie examination, fail to disclose the essential ingredients necessary to attract criminal liability under Section 34 of the Act. Th
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 prosecution was quashed due to procedural lapses, lack of vicarious liability for non-executive directors, and exceeding the statutory limitation period, constituting an abuse of the process of l....
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....
Directors can be held vicariously liable for company offenses under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act if they are responsible for the company's operations and fail to demonstrate due diligence.
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.
Criminal liability for partners requires specific allegations of responsibility; mere designation is insufficient, and complaints may be barred by limitation.
A prima facie case may arise from additional documents, supporting liability despite insufficient initial allegations.
Distributors of drugs are not liable for quality issues if they prove acquisition from a licensed manufacturer and proper storage, as per Section 19(3) of 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
