Regular
S. No. 24
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
CRM (M) No. 459/2021
CrlM No. 1482/2021
Sandeep Vijh
… Petitioner
Through: Mr. Salih Pirzada, Advocate
V/s
State through Drug Inspector Baramulla (HQ)
… Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Hakeem Aman Ali, Advocate
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE
ORDER :
1. The petitioner herein has filed the instant petition under section 482 Cr.P.C., [now Section 528, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)], seeking quashment of complaint titled as ‘ State through Drug Inspector Baramulla (HQ) versus Managing Director and others’, pending before the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Baramulla (for short the trial court) including the proceedings initiated thereon.
2. The facts giving rise to the filing of the instant petition as stated therein are that the petitioner is Managing Director/Proprietor of a drug manufacturing company namely M/s Knox Life Sciences with its registered office at village Gullarwala, Sai Road, Baddi, District Solan (H.P.).
The impugned complaint is stated to have been instituted by the respondent herein under and in terms of the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act of 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1940) on 20.11.2012 before the court of Principal Sessions Judge, Baramulla, whereupon had been assigned for trial to the trial court whereafter the said trial court had taken cognizance and issued process for summoning of the accused persons including the petitioner herein for commission of offences under section 18(a)(i) and section 27 of the Act of 1940.
3. The petitioner herein has maintained the instant petition on the following grounds:
a. That the process initiated against the petitioner in terms of impugned order dated 20.11.2012 is misdirected as no satisfaction has been drawn for taking cognizance of the complaint. Since the impugned order dated 20.11.2012 does not reveal the cognizance of offence which is prerequisite for issuing process, as such, the entire proceedings being bad in law are liable to be set aside.
b. That the complaint and the impugned order are totally illegal and unlawful as the learned trial court on being in receipt of complaint is vested with the powers to take cognizance of the complaint under relevant sections of Drugs & Cosmetics Act after proper application of mind which is faulty in the impugned order dated 20.11.2012. Therefore, the impugned order dated 20.11.2012 and the proceedings being bad in law are liable to be set aside.
c. That an opinion is to be formed only after due application of mind that there is sufficient basis for proceeding against the alleged accused and formation of such an opinion is to be stated in the order itself. The order is liable to be set aside if no reason is given therein while coming to the conclusion that there is prima facie case against the accused, though the order needs not contained detailed reasons. Therefore, the cognizance taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Baramulla, by issuing process and proceeding ahead with the complaint against the petitioner is liable to be set aside.
d. That the offences committed by a company have been specified distinctly under The Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The provision relating to such offences is as follows:
‘ 34. Offences by companies . — (1) Where an offence under this Act has been committed by a company, every person who at the time the offence was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly:
Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any such person liable to any punishment provided in this Act if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where an offence under this Act has been committed by a company and it is proved that the offence has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company, such director, manager, secretary or
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.
A complaint against a company director must explicitly allege their responsibility for the company's conduct to be legally maintainable under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.
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.
Proper arraying of the accused in a complaint is essential for prosecution under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.
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....
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....
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 ....
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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.