Back
SANJAY DHAR
Rishi Sharma Director Haustus Biotech Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Bilal Ahmad Rather, Drugs Inspector – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY DHAR, J.
1. The petitioner has challenged the complaint filed by respondent Drugs Inspector alleging commission of offences under section 18(a)(i) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, as also order dated 10.10.2017, by virtue of which the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Pulwama, has impleaded the petitioner as an accused and issued process against him.
2. As per the record, respondent Drugs Inspector had filed a complaint inter alia against the Managing Director and proprietor of M/s. Haustus Biotech Pvt. Ltd, alleging therein that a sample of the drug, namely, Menthocare-D was lifted from the premises of M/s. Guru Nanak Pharmacy, Diver Tral, for testing and analysis. The said sample, upon analysis by the Government Analyst, was found to be not of standard quality. During investigation, it was found that the drug in question has been manufactured by M/s. Haustus Biotech Pvt. Ltd. Tahliwal Una, Himachal Pradesh. At the instance of the manufacturing company, the sample, under the direction of concerned Judicial Magistrate, was sent to Central Drugs Laboratory, Kolkata, for re-analysis. After reanalysis of the sample, it was reported by the Central Drugs Laboratory,
The judgment emphasizes the requirement for evidence-based satisfaction for impleading an accused under Section 32A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and highlights the need for courts to adhere to prop....
Cognizance of offences under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act requires adherence to procedural mandates, especially under Section 202 of Cr. P. C when the accused is beyond jurisdiction.
Preliminary inquiry under S.202 of the CrPC is mandatory before issuing process against accused residing beyond territorial jurisdiction.
Trial court cannot issue process without preliminary inquiry under Section 202 of the CrPC when the accused resides outside jurisdiction. Non-compliance renders proceedings illegitimate.
The judgment established the principle that a company can be prosecuted without impleading its Directors or persons responsible for conducting its business, and can be sentenced to a fine for offence....
Directors of a company not involved in drug manufacturing cannot be held liable under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act absent specific evidence of their responsibility for the conduct of business.
Under Section 34 Drugs and Cosmetics Act, company offence liability presumes against nominated responsible person and firm; other officers require specific role allegations, not mere designations.
Liability under Section 34 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act requires specific allegations of being in charge and responsible for the conduct of the business, which were absent in this case.
Point of Law - In fact, there is no bar to sending a sample of drug for test/analysis directly to CDL without first sending to the Government Analyst. This is clear from the bare language of the Sect....
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
