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.

ORDER :

1. Petitioners-accused Nos.3 and 4 are at the doors of this Court calling in question an order dated 16-12-2023 passed by the Special Court for Economic Offences, Bengaluru, taking cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 27 (c), 28 and 28-A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’ for short). The petitioners, as a consequence, have sought for quashment of the complaint and the entire proceedings in C.C.No.123 of 2023.

2. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows:

2.1. A complaint comes to be registered on 14-12-2023 against these petitioners among others, alleging that the accused No.1-Company by name M/s. Mirana Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., has manufactured and further sold drugs without having drug manufacturing licences and accused No.2, is the Director of the said Company and the authorized person responsible for the day-to-day activities. Against these petitioners it is alleged that, petitioner No.1/accused No.3 being the Proprietor and the registered Pharmacist of M/s. Sree Manjunath Medicals, Bangalore and petitioner No.2/accused No.4 being the person in-charge of the said firm, were engaged in purchase, stock and sale of Mirakul sanitizer manufactured by accused Nos.1 and 2 and New Bioclean nourishing hand sanitizer, both of which did not qualify as a standard quality drug and are manufactured at an unlicensed firm. On 26-05-2020, the then Assistant Drugs Controller-1, Bangalore on a routine inspection of the medical shops, found 62 Mirakul sanitizer bottles of 60 ml. each and 41 New Bioclean nourishing hand sanitizer of 100 ml. each in the medical shop run by the petitioners. The samples were seized and sent for scientific examination in which Mirakul sanitizer was reported that it was of standard quality and the New Bioclean nourishing hand sanitizer was not of standard quality.

2.2. Upon completion of investigation, a complaint is filed on the aforesaid allegations against 4 accused, arraigning these petitioners as accused Nos.3 and 4. On the receipt of the complaint dated 16-12-2023, the learned Special Judge takes cognizance of the offence against all the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 27 (c), 28 and 28-A of the Act. It is the taking of cognizance which has driven the petitioners to this Court in the subject petition.

3. Heard Smt Shridevi Bhosale M, learned counsel appearing for petitioners and Sri B N Jagadeesha, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that the sample was seized on 26-05-2020 and sent for scientific examination. The scientific examination report was received on 29-07-2020. The complaint is registered 3 and a half years after the receipt of the report. It is therefore a case where the complaint is registered beyond limitation. Even otherwise, the learned counsel would contend that, the report in respect of New Bio-clean hand sanitizer is not that of standard quality. The report is said to be rendered in a format that is not prescribed under the statute to hold it to be a spurious drug under Section 17B of the Act. The learned counsel would contend that the complaint and the entire material does not in any way support the case of the prosecution, as no document or the ledger record from the petitioners is seized for either purchase or sale of drug. The learned counsel submits that the seizing of the drugs from the premises of the petitioners is itself in contravention of Section 23 (4)of the Act.

5. Per-contra, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor Sri B.N. Jagadeesh would submit that the respondent-Drugs Insp