Back
RAKESH KAINTHLA
Ashish Dhamija – Appellant
Versus
State of H. P. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. inspection of drug quality and subsequent complaints. (Para 1) |
| 2. allegations of partner's liability and procedural validity. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. arguments presented by both parties regarding jurisdiction. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 4. court's analysis of existing legal principles and jurisprudence. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 14) |
| 5. necessity of arraigning the firm in drug-related prosecutions. (Para 12 , 13 , 23 , 24) |
| 6. importance of compliance with statutory provisions in prosecutions. (Para 15 , 21 , 22) |
| 7. vicarious liability and necessity of prosecuting the principal offender. (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 8. quashing of complaint due to absence of firm as accused. (Para 25 , 26) |
| 9. conclusion reached by the court and order of quashing. (Para 27 , 28) |
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
Drug Inspector inspected the premises of M/s Soni Medical Store on 17.1.2018. He obtained the samples of GMP-M2 for analysis after payment of the amount. One sample was sent to the Government Analyst, who issued a report that the sample was not of standard quality. The Drug Inspector served a notice upon Ram Swaroop Soni, Proprietor of M/s Soni Medical Store informing him about the sample not being of standard qu
Partners cannot be prosecuted under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act without the firm being charged as an accused, emphasizing the necessity of vicarious liability in criminal proceedings.
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....
Liability under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act requires clear averments in the complaint regarding the accused's managerial responsibility; mere directorship is insufficient without evidence of control ....
Vicarious liability under Section 34 of Drugs and Cosmetics Act requires specific complaint averments that director/MD in charge and responsible for company business conduct; mere designation insuffi....
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.
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
