SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(JK) 379

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

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.

Headnote:(A) Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 - Sections 18(a)(i) and 34 - Quashment of complaint - The petitioner, Managing Director of a drug manufacturing company, challenged the legality of the complaint filed under the Act, asserting that the trial court failed to draw proper cognizance and lacked sufficient allegations against him. The court emphasized that mere designation as Managing Director does not imply liability unless it is shown that the individual was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business at the time of the offence. The complaint was found to be vague and lacking necessary details, leading to its quashment. (Paras 1-11)

(B) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 482 - Inherent powers of the High Court - The court reiterated that it can quash proceedings to prevent abuse of process of law. (Paras 10)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, as Managing Director of a drug company, faced a complaint under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, which was claimed to be legally untenable due to lack of specific allegations regarding his responsibility for the alleged offences.

Findings of Court:
The court found the complaint vague and lacking in necessary allegations to sustain the charges against the petitioner.

Issues: The main issues included whether the trial court properly took cognizance of the complaint and whether the petitioner could be held liable under Section 34 of the Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that liability under Section 34 requires specific allegations of being in charge and responsible for the conduct of the business, which were absent in this case.

Result: The impugned complaint and proceedings were quashed.

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top