Back
N. ANAND VENKATESH
Crescent Therapeutics Limited (Presently known as Sanctus Global Formulations Ltd. ) Through its Directors Factory at Khasra, Himachal Pradesh – Appellant
Versus
Union of India, represented by Drugs Inspector, Office of the Deputy Drugs Controller (India), Chennai – Respondent
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records of the proceedings in C.C.No.343 of 2021 on the file of the XV Metropolitan Magistrate''s Court, George Town, Chennai and to quash the same as illegal.)
This petition has been filed challenging the proceedings pending in C.C.No.343 of 2021, on the file of the XV Metropolitan Magistrate Court, George Town, Chennai.
2. The respondent has filed a complaint before the Court below against the accused persons (A1 to A4) for contravention of Section 18(a)(i) r/w Section 16 and Section 18-B of the Drugs and Cosmetics At, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') punishable under Sections 27(d) and 28-A of the Act.
3. The sum and substance of the complaint given by the respondent is that the company is manufacturing drugs of substandard quality and hence, the company and its directors have contravened the provisions of the Act and consequently they are punishable for the said contravention.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of respondent.
5. Even though the quash petition has been filed by all the fo
The central legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of specific averments against accused persons to establish their responsibility in the conduct of the business of the company, as ....
Directors of a company cannot be held vicariously liable under Section 34 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act without specific allegations detailing their involvement in the conduct of the company's busin....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that for making a director of a company liable for offences committed by the company under the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940, there must be specific ....
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....
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.
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.
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....
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
