Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
SANDEEP SHARMA
Amit Kumar Bansal – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Judgment :
Sandeep Sharma, J.
Since common question of facts and law are involved in both the above captioned cases, this Court after having clubbed the same, heard them together and are now being disposed of vide common judgment.
Cr. MMO No.305 of 2022
2. By way of instant petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., prayer has been made on behalf of petitioner for quashing of complaint case No.8/3 of 2022, titled as Union of India Vs. M/s Theon Pharmaceuticals Limited and Others, pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalagarh, District Solan, as well as order dated 10.01.2022, passed in afore complaint, thereby summoning petitioner as an accused.
3. Briefly summarised, the facts are that on 31.12.2021, Mr. Fahim Khan, Drug Inspector, Central Drug Standard Control Organisation, India, Sub-Zone Baddi, Himachal Pradesh, filed a complaint under Sections 18(a)(i) and 18(a)(vi) read with Section 16 punishable under Section 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, (for short, ‘the Act’) against M/s Theon Pharmaceuticals Limited, Managing Director of afore company i.e. petitioner herein and Mr. Puran Chand Joshi, Wholetime Director, averring therein that Mr. V.
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....
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 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....
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.
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....
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
