The judgment established the liability of individuals in a corporate criminal liability, the circumstances under which a director or managing director of a company can be made an accused, and the exercise of the High Court's extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing proceedings at any stage.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

1. This petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard.

2. This matter was filed on 28.01.2015. The matter was listed before the Lawazima Board on 12.02.2015 and 26.03.2015. On 27.01.2016, the matter was directed to be listed for admission on 04.02.2016 and on 19.02.2016, 25.02.2016, 03.03.2016, 10.03.2016 and 19.03.2016 adjournments have been taken by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners.

3. When this matter was taken up today, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has informed the Court that warrant of arrest has been issued against the petitioners. He further submits that there is law point involved in this petition and this matter may be heard.

4. This petition has been filed for quashing of entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 29.09.2014 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dumka in O.C.R. Case No. 128/14 and pending in the same court.

5. The complaint was filed by the Inspector of Drugs, Dumka stating therein that on 18.12.2013 the complainant took the sample of Diethyl Carbamazin tablet expiry dated August, 2014 from the Drug Store District VBD office, Dumka. The sample was sent for analysis to the Government Analyst at Namkum, Ranchi. On analysis the sample was declared “Not of Standard Quality” in respect of description and the label with reason that:

(I) That the Tablets are not sufficient to hard with standard handling as few tablets were crumbled on handling

(II) Diethyl Carbamazin Citrate is not included in schedule ‘H’ drugs under Drugs And Cosmetics Act, 1940 but it label as Schedule ‘H’ drug vide test Report No. GA-252 dated 15.01.2014. Copy of the test report was sent to the Store Keeper vide office letter dated 20.01.2014 and was asked to produce the purchase invoice of the said tablet. The storekeeper vide his letter dated 27.9.2012 produced the purchase invoice of M/s K.K. Pharmaceuticals, Station Road, Jugsalai, Jamshedpur. The complainant then vide office letter dated 20.01.2014 asked to M/s K.K. Pharmaceuticals, Jamshedpur to produce the purchase invoice of the drugs in question, in compliance K.K. Pharmaceuticals produced the purchase invoiced of M/s Bharat Drugs and Chemicals, Dawa Bazar, Indore being Invoice dated 25.09.2012 vide office letter dated 10.04.2014 said Bharat Drugs and Chemicals was requested to produce the purchase invoice of the drugs in question. Said Bharat Drugs and Chemicals, Indore produced a purchase invoice bearing No. 328 dated 25.9.2012 which was raised by M/s CIPCO Pharmaceuticals, Indore. It is the further case of the complainant that vide letter dated 2.5.2014 the manufacturer asked the copy of manufacturing license, the product approval and the person responsible for manufacturing the said tablet and in compliance of the aforesaid requirements the manufacturer produced necessary documents. It is further stated that sealed portion of the sample was sent to M/s K.K. Pharmaceuticals, Station Road, Jugsalai, Jamshedpur through registered parcel on 15.2.2014. The manufacturer vide his letter dated 12.6.2014 informed the complainant that the drug has been crumbled because of the improper storage and also due to improper care taken during transportation by the agencies. It has been alleged in the complaint that no supplier or agency in this supply chain has mentioned the mode of transport in their invoice including the manufacturer. Thus, this reason may not be considered. Therefore, the manufacturer has violated Section 17(c) and Section 18(A)(1) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, which is punishable under Section 27(d) of the said Act.”

6. Mr. Agarwal, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that M/s CIPCO Pharmaceut