Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
SANDEEP SHARMA
Paramjit Arora – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SANDEEP SHARMA, J.
1. By way of instant petition filed under S.528 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter, ‘ BNSS ’), prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioners for quashing of Cr. Complaint titled State of Himachal Pradesh through Drugs Inspector H.Q. Mandi, H.P. v. Health Biotech Limited and others, pending adjudication before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandi (CNR No. HPMA020089392022 & Reg. No. 01/2022 & date of institution 30.7.2022). Besides above, petitioners, who are Directors of M/s Health Biotech Limited, have also prayed for quashing of summoning order as well as subsequent proceedings issued/initiated against the petitioners by the court concerned, while taking cognizance of offence under S. 18(a)(i) and S.27(d) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter, ‘Act’).
2. Precisely, the facts of the case are that on 10.9.2021, complainant Mr. Abhilash Kumar, Drugs Inspector, H.Q. Mandi, Himachal Pradesh received a letter from the Senior Medical Superintendent, SLBSGMC & H, Mandi at Nerchowk through the Chief Medical Officer, Mandi, regarding sampling and testing of the product namely Local Anaesthesia 2% xylocaine with
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.
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....
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 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....
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.
Directors of a company cannot be held vicariously liable under Section 34 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act without specific allegations detailing their involvement in the conduct of the company's busin....
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
