Back
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
JAGJIT SINGH – Appellant
Versus
BHAWANA BAHT – Respondent
ORDER :
1. In the instant petition, the petitioner herein has invoked inherent power of this Court enshrined under section 561-A Cr.P.C. (now section 528 BNSS of 2023) for quashing of criminal complaint titled as, “Drugs Inspector Reasi vs. Anuradha and others” including the proceedings initiated thereon (for short the impugned complaint) pending before the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Katra (for short the Magistrate).
2. The facts as stated in the petition and under the shade and cover of which the instant petition has been filed are that the petitioner herein is the Director of a Private Limited Company, namely, M/s Alna Biotech Pvt. Limited having its registered office at S.C.F. 1013, Mani Majra, Chandigarh holding a distribution and wholesale license of drugs under in terms of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (for short the Act of 1940) issued by the competent authority.
It is being stated that the respondent herein filed the impugned complaint under sections 18(a)(i) read with section 27(d) of the Act of 1940 besides others against the petitioner herein, on the ground that a drug namely, “CALSAFE-CZ” (tablet) having batch No. RRT-1052, with date of manufacturing as 07/2013 and
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.
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.
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....
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.
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.
Specific averments against Directors showing their responsibility for the conduct of the business of the company are necessary to establish vicarious liability 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....
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
