Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
SANDEEP SHARMA
Umang Vohra – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. substandard drug sample failed dual lab tests. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. marketer md not responsible for manufacturing quality. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 3. md vicariously liable as company in-charge. (Para 14 , 15) |
| 4. s.482 crpc quashes abuse of process. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 5. s.34 requires specific averments for vicarious liability. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 6. no averments equals no md liability. (Para 35 , 36 , 37) |
| 7. quash proceedings qua petitioner md. (Para 38 , 39 , 40 , 41) |
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 petiti
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....
Directors liable under Drugs Act Section 34 if complaint specifically avers their involvement in business conduct via emails and records, notwithstanding competent person appointment.
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....
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
