Back
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
Piramal Healthcare Ltd. through its Manager Legal Mrs. Seema Akhelikar – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. In all these cases, common orders and complaint case have been challenged, that’s why all these petitions have been heard together with the consent of the parties.
2. Heard Mr. Indraji Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in all these cases and Mr. Binit Chandra, learned A.C. to A.A.G.-III for the opposite parties in Cr.M.P. No. 2984 of 2014, Mr. Anup Pawan Topno, learned A.P.P. for the opposite parties in Cr.M.P. No. 275 of 2015 and Ms Sushma Aind, learned A.P.P. for the opposite parties in Cr.M.P. No. 284 of 2015.
3. These petitions have been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 01.06.2010, by which, cognizance for the offence under Section 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act has been taken against the petitioners. Further prayer has been made for quashing of the orders dated 27.09.2010, 21.05.2011, 30.07.2013 and 26.09.2013, by which, bailable warrant, nonbailable warrant and processes under Sections 82 and 83 respectively have and its analogous cases been directed to be issued against the petitioners, in connection with C.G. No. 19 of 2010 corresponding to T.R. No. 697 of 2013, pending in
The court upheld the interpretation of misbranding under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, making company directors liable for offenses under corporate conduct.
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 ....
Vicarious liability under Section 34 of Drugs and Cosmetics Act requires specific complaint averments that director/MD in charge and responsible for company business conduct; mere designation insuffi....
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.
Proper arraying of the accused in a complaint is essential for prosecution under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.
Directors liable under Drugs Act Section 34 if complaint specifically avers their involvement in business conduct via emails and records, notwithstanding competent person appointment.
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
