Back
SANJAY DHAR
Amit Kumar Bansal – Appellant
Versus
Sanjeev Kumar Gupta – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. substandard drugs complaints against company and directors. (Para 01 , 02) |
| 2. no specific allegations; nominated director solely responsible. (Para 03) |
| 3. section 34 presumes liability for nominated company officer. (Para 05) |
| 4. partly allow petitions, quash against non-responsible petitioners. (Para 6 , 7) |
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY DHAR, J.
01. By virtue of this judgment, the afore-titled five petitions under Section 482 of CrPC, involving common question of law are proposed to be disposed of.
02. Background facts:
(i) CRMC No. 450/2018
2.1. Through the medium of the present petition under Section 482 of CrPC, the petitioners, who have been impleaded as accused Nos. 1 to 3, 5 to 8 and 11 in the impugned complaint, have challenged the complaint registered as File No. 1208/Complaint with date of institution as 10.04.2018, filed by the respondent against them before the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu, alleging commission of offences under Section 18 (a) (i) read with Section 27 (d) of the Drug and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter to be referred to as “Act of 1940”). Challenge has also been thrown to order dated 10.04.2018 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magi
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.
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 ....
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....
Proper arraying of the accused in a complaint is essential for prosecution under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.
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....
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
