Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
HARVIR SINGH
Marion Biotech Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. case background and allegations against the revisionists (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding procedural irregularities and absence of liability (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. court's evaluation of prima facie evidence and judicial discretion (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 4. legal framework and responsibility under the drugs and cosmetics act (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 5. final dismissal of revisions (Para 28 , 29) |
JUDGMENT :
HARVIR SINGH, J.
1. Heard Sri Niraj Kumar Singh, holding brief of Sri Saroj Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the revisionists, and Sri R.P.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the opposite party-Union of India, and perused the record.
2. This Criminal Revision is directed against the impugned cognizance and summoning order dated 19.01.2024 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar in Complaint Case No. 2462 of 2024 (Union of India vs. Ms Marion Biotech Pvt. Ltd. & Others), under Sections 18(a)(i), 16, 17-A, 17-B, 18-A, 18-B and punishable under Sections 27(a), 27(b)(i), 27(b)(ii), 27(c), 27(d), 28, 28-A, and 28-B of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, Police Station Phase III, Noida, District Gauta
Directors are liable under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act for the conduct of the company's business, and summoning orders require only a prima facie case without extensive procedural scrutiny.
Non-compliance with statutory provisions and resignation of the accused from the company absolved him of liability, leading to the quashing of the proceedings.
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.
Compliance with statutory provisions is essential for the validity of prosecution actions; failure to adhere to such requirements can lead to acquittal.
Non-compliance with inspection procedures under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 is not fatal for prosecution in cases involving allegations of spurious drugs.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the prosecution for manufacturing drugs not of standard quality may not be launched if the product is free from any foreign matter and the def....
Prosecution quashed for delay in sample testing beyond 60 days without extension under Rule 45 and failure to send sample to manufacturer under Section 23(4)(iii), depriving re-analysis right post sh....
Conviction under drug regulation provisions requires proving non-compliance, highlighting the importance of disclosing the manufacturer's details for legal protection.
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
