Back
SANJAY DHAR
Ashish Dhamija Manorma Dhamija – Appellant
Versus
UT of J&K – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY DHAR, J.
1. By this common judgment, two petitions, CRM (M) No. 14/2021 filed by petitioner Ashish Dhamija and CRM (M) No. 303/2019 field by petitioner Manorma Dhamija, are proposed to be disposed of. Through the medium of these petitions, the petitioners have challenged complaint filed by respondent Drugs Control Officer alleging commission of offences under section 18(a)(i) read with Section 17(B)(d), 27(c), 36-AB, 124B and Schedule V S. No. 3 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the rules made thereunder.
2. The record shows that the respondent Drugs Control Officer has lodged the impugned complaint against the petitioners and co-accused before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shopian. As per the complaint, on 23rd January, 2018, respondent Drugs Control Officer inspected the premises of co-accused, Shahnawaz Ahmad Khanday, who is stated to be the proprietor of Bismillah Medicate, Ringward, Keller, Shopian, and sample of the drug Biocenac - P.B. No. ADT-02-1725 was collected from his shop. The said sample, upon analysis by the Government Analyst, was found to be of not of standard quality. During investigation, it was found that the drug in question has
Partners cannot be prosecuted under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act without the firm being charged as an accused, emphasizing the necessity of vicarious liability in criminal proceedings.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that for vicarious liability under Section 34 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, it is essential to prove that the directors or partners were in....
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....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that specific and clear averments regarding the role and responsibilities of the accused in the commission of the offence are necessary to establis....
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....
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.
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....
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
