Back
SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Sunita Dhawan – Appellant
Versus
UOI – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of case and charges against petitioners. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. defenses based on lack of direct involvement. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. prosecution's arguments on liability and malpractice. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. liability under the drugs and cosmetics act. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 5. analysis leading to rejection of bail application. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 6. final decision on the anticipatory bail application. (Para 30 , 31) |
JUDGMENT
Sandeep Moudgil, J.
The petitioners seek grant of anticipatory bail in complaint No.1 dated 03.03.2022 (Annexure P1), under Sections 32 /16/17-A(f)/17- B(d)/18(a)(i)/ 18(a)(vi) & 18(c) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 read with Sections 27 (b)(1), 27(c), 27(d), 36-AC of the said Act.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant-Drug Inspector on the directions of Deputy Drugs Controller (I) Sub Zone Baddi vide letter No.NZ/BD-SZO/PUN/OFOR/2019-20/467-469 dated 18.6.2020 for necessary sampling of sanitizer for the testing and analysis from various area of Punjab viz. Mohali, Kharar and Zirakpur on 18.6.2020 constituted a team comprising two drugs Inspectors of CDSCO-Sub Zone
Directors of a company not involved in drug manufacturing cannot be held liable under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act absent specific evidence of their responsibility for the conduct of business.
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....
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....
Vicarious liability under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act requires specific averments in the complaint to establish that individuals were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business at t....
Directors liable under Drugs Act Section 34 if complaint specifically avers their involvement in business conduct via emails and records, notwithstanding competent person appointment.
Vicarious liability under Drugs Act Section 34 requires specific averments that directors were in charge of and responsible for day-to-day business and supervision; mere directorship insufficient, bu....
Vicarious liability under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act requires clear allegations of a director's responsibility for the company's conduct; mere directorship is insufficient.
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.
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.
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
