IMPORTANT POINT
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 business.

ORDER :

(N. Anand Venkatesh, J.) :

This criminal original petition has been filed by the second accused to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.526 of 2022 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpat.

2. The brief facts leading to filing of this case are as follows :

(i) The respondent had drawn sample of a drug manufactured by one M/s. Health Biotech Limited (A1) and it was sent for analysis to the Government Analyst on 30.5.2019. The Government Analyst declared that the sample was not of standard quality and that there was a violation of Section 18(a)(i) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (for short, the Act) and the Rules framed thereunder.

(ii) Since the said sample was taken from a medical shop namely one M/s.Lakshmi Medicals, a show cause notice was issued along with the report of the Government Analyst. In turn, the proprietor of the said M/s.Lakshmi Medicals disclosed that the drug was purchased from one M/s.Kamalam Medical Corporation. In view of the same, a show cause notice was issued to the said M/s.Kamalam Medical Corporation along with necessary documents. In response to this notice, the proprietor of M/s.Kamalam Medical Corporation disclosed that the drug was purchased from one M/s.Gromax Health Care Private Limited.

(iii) Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued to the said M/s.Gromax Health Care Private Limited and their explanation was called for. Further, the said M/s.Gromax Health Care Private Limited informed that they had purchased the drug from the first accused - company under invoice dated 23.11.2018.

(iv) Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued to the first accused - company calling for explanation for contravention of Section 18(a)(i) of the Act. Along with the show cause notice, the Government Analyst's report was sent and a sealed portion of sample was also sent separately as mandated under Section 23(4)(iii) of the Act. The first accused - company was also requested to furnish various details. But, even after receipt of the notice, no reply was received from the first accused - company, which is the manufacturer of the drug. Hence, a reminder letter dated 14.8.2019 was sent to the first accused - company to offer an explanation for the show cause memo. Despite that, there was no response to the reminder letter. Further, yet another reminder dated 09.9.2019 was sent to the first accused - company.

(v) On receipt of this reminder letter, a reply dated 18.9.2019 was received, in which, it was stated by the first accused - company that they are having a valid manufacturing licence issued by the State Licensing Authority and that they never manufactured nor marketed any product/drug, which is not of standard quality. The first accused - company also informed the respondent that they also tested the drug and it was found that the same satisfied all the requirements and was within the specified limits.

(vi) While giving the reply, the first accused - company did not furnish many of the details/particulars sought for by the respondent. Hence, the particulars were taken from the website of the Registrar of Companies, Chandigarh. It was found that the petitioner was the director of the first accused - company from the date of inception and therefore, he was arrayed as the second accused along with the first accused - company.

(vii) A sanction order was obtained from the Director of Drugs Control, Chennai-6 dated 11.11.2019. Thereafter, the complaint was filed by the respondent before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Chengalpat on 17.12.2019 and it was taken on file in C.C.No.526 of 2022. This is put to challenge by the petitioner (A2) in this petition.

3. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent.

4. The main ground that was urged by the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that the petitioner is not in any way involved in the day-to-day affairs of the