Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KAINTHLA
Symbiosis Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Rakesh Kainthla, J.)
The petitioners have filed the present petition for quashing complaint No.5/3 of 2022, summoning order dated 03.06.2022 and consequential proceedings arising out of the same against the petitioners. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before learned Trial Court for convenience).
2. Briefly stated, the complainant Drug Inspector filed a complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirmaur District at Nahan, asserting that a sample of drug Rabeprazole (EC) and Domperidone (SR) Capsules (Olez-DSR), Batch No. SCO- 587, Date of manufacturing 12-2017, Date of expiry 11-2019, manufactured by petitioner No.1, was drawn for analysis from the premises of petitioner No.1. The sample was sent to Government analyst Regional Drug Testing Laboratory, Chandigarh, who issued a report stating that the sample was not of standard quality. Petitioners No.1 to 3, being the manufacturing firm which had manufactured the drugs in question and which was declared to be not of standard quality, are liable for punishment; hence, the complaint was filed for taking action against the petitioners/accused.
3. Learned Trial Court
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.
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 Drugs Act Section 34 requires specific averments that directors were in charge of and responsible for day-to-day business and supervision; mere directorship insufficient, bu....
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 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.
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....
Non-compliance with statutory provisions and resignation of the accused from the company absolved him of liability, leading to the quashing of the proceedings.
Directors cannot be held liable for a company's criminal acts without specific allegations of their involvement; mere directorship is insufficient for establishing vicarious liability.
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
