Directors liable under Drugs Act Section 34 if complaint specifically avers their involvement in business conduct via emails and records, notwithstanding competent person appointment.

JUDGMENT :

Virender Singh, J.

The petitioners have filed the present petition, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘the BNSS’), for quashing the order dated 10.6.2024, passed by the Court of learned Special Judge, Drugs and Cosmetics Act, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’), whereby the learned trial Court has framed the charges, against the petitioners.

2. In the present petition, the petitioners have sought the following substantive reliefs amongst others:

“a. Pass an Order setting aside the entirety of the criminal proceedings emanating out of the Supplementary Complaint filed by the Drug Inspector before the Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nalagarh, wherein the Petitioners have been arraigned as accused persons for purported offences committed under Section 17 B, 36 AC, 18(c), 22(3), 18A, 18B, 27(c), 27(b)(ii), 22(3), 28 and 28 A of the D & C Act, 1940 and the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 in Case no. 157/2024; including the order on charge dated 10.06.2024, passed by the Ld. Special Judge, Drugs and Cosmetics Act, Nalagarh, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh whereby the Ld. Special Judge has passed identical orders framing charges against the Petitioners under Ss. 17-B, 36-AC, 18 (c), 27(b)(ii), 18A, 18B, 28, 28A, 22(3) and 27(D) of the D & C Act.
b. Pass an order quashing the Supplementary Prosecution Complaint filed by the Drug Inspector qua the Petitioners.”

2. The said reliefs have been sought on the ground that the Drugs Inspector has filed a complaint, under Sections 17 B, 36AC, 18(c), 22(3), 18A, 18B, 27(c), 27(b)(ii), 22(3), 28 and 28 A of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’), upon which, cognizance has been taken by the learned trial Court, and charges were framed, vide order dated 10.6.2024.

3. It is the case of the petitioners that on 31.1.2020, a company, under the name and Style of ‘M/s K.C. Overseas Pvt Ltd.’, having its registered office at Khasra No. 169/2, Buranwala Chowk, Village Buranwala, Tehsil Baddi, District Solan, H.P., was incorporated under the Companies Act, 2013.

4. The said company was in the business of trading of raw material of pharmaceutical products under the authority of licenses, issued by the State Drugs Controller, Food and Drugs Control Administration, H.P., under the Rules. The company has appointed Sh. Harish Kumar as the competent person, according to the provisions of the Rules and as per the license, which was issued in Form 20B, in favour of the company, “sales shall be made under the personal supervision of the competent person” and in the “name of competent person”.

5. Petitioners No. 1 and 2 are mentioned as Directors of the said company, but are not involved in the day-to-day affairs of the said company, including the operations carried out from the Baddi Office and Godown of the said company. In this regard, they have relied upon the license, dated 23.12.2022, which was issued in the name of company, in Form-20B and Form- 21B of the Rules.

6. It is the further case of the petitioners that in terms of res