2026 Supreme(HP) 311

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
SANDEEP SHARMA, J.
Umang Vohra - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India - Respondents
CrMMO No. 733 of 2025
Decided On : 25-03-2026
 

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 insufficient if authorized rep handles day-to-day and manufacturer contractually liable. (38 words)

Headnote:(A) Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 - Sections 18(a)(i) & (vi) read with Section 16(1)(a) punishable under Section 27(d), Section 34 - Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) - Section 528 (CrPC Section 482) - Complaint for manufacturing, marketing substandard drug failing assay tests by two government labs - Petition by Managing Director of marketing company (accused No.5) for quashing complaint and summoning order - No specific averment in complaint that petitioner in charge of and responsible for day-to-day conduct of business of company - Manufacturer separately licensed with expert staff, entered quality and purchase agreements warrantying compliance and indemnifying marketing company - Authorized representative (accused No.6) responsible for day-to-day operations - Vicarious liability under Section 34 requires specific averments of role; mere MD designation insufficient - Proceedings quashed qua petitioner as abuse of process, preventing protracted trial bound to fail. (Paras 9-13, 28-41)

(B) CrPC Section 482 (BNSS Section 528) - Quashing criminal proceedings - High Court may quash if continuation abuse of process or secures ends of justice - Material by accused must be sound, rule out assertions, unrefuted, leading to conclusion defence based on indubitable facts - Steps: sterling quality material, rejects accusations, cannot be refuted, trial abuse - No mini-trial but consider unimpeachable evidence. (Paras 19-26)

(C) Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 - Section 34 - Offences by companies - Vicarious liability on person in charge and responsible for business conduct at time of offence - Not mere director/MD unless specific averment of role in day-to-day affairs - Strict construction; complainant must aver how accused responsible - Proviso allows escape if no knowledge or due diligence - Applies to marketer where manufacturer contractually responsible. (Paras 28-35)

Facts of the case:
Sample of drug manufactured by one company, marketed by another, drawn from manufacturer, failed quality tests by two labs (assay Ofloxacin low, Metronidazole high) - Show cause, retest, investigation, sanction - Complaint against manufacturer, its MD/QA manager, marketing company, its MD (petitioner), authorized representative - Summoning order issued - Petitioner filed petition claiming no day-to-day role, agreements place responsibility on manufacturer.

Findings of Court:
Complaint silent on petitioner's specific role; authorized representative handles day-to-day; manufacturer warranted quality, compliance - No basis for vicarious liability without averments - Quashing warranted under inherent powers.

Issues: Whether complaint/summoning order qua MD of marketing company sustainable absent specific averments of being in charge/responsible for business conduct; applicability of Section 34 vicarious liability to non-manufacturer.

Ratio Decidendi: Complaint must contain specific averments that accused was in charge of and responsible to company for conduct of business under Section 34; bald MD statement insufficient - Material (agreements, licenses, authorized rep) rules out liability, unrefutable, trial abuse.

Result: Petition allowed. Complaint and proceedings quashed/set aside qua petitioner (accused No.5); petitioner discharged.