Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
SANDEEP SHARMA
Umang Vohra – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Sandeep Sharma, J.
By way of instant petition filed under S.528 Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter, ‘BNSS’), prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner/accused No.5, for quashing of Complaint No. 15 of 2024 titled Union of India through Inspector of Drugs, Kamla, Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation (C.D.S.C.O.) Sub Zone Baddi-HP v. M/s Crest Lifesciences Pvt. Ltd. and others as well as consequent proceedings, emanating therefrom, pending before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalagarh, Himachal Pradesh. Besides above, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of summoning order dated 18.1.2024 (Annexure P-26), whereby Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, while taking cognizance of offence punishable under S.18(a)(i) & (vi) read with S.16(1)(a) punishable under S.27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter, ‘Act’) issued process against the petitioner, alleging therein that M/s Crest Lifesciences Pvt. Ltd., Plot N. 127-128, EPIP, Phase-I, Jharmajri, Tehsil Baddi, District Solan (HP) is holding a licence to manufacture drugs and has manufactured drug “Oflox OZ Suspension 30 ML, Ofloxacin & Metron
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.
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....
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....
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....
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
