SlideShare una empresa de Scribd logo
1 de 8
Descargar para leer sin conexión
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.CH.SURYA RAO
 Criminal Petition No.1825 OF 2006
 28−11−2006
 Cyper Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.
 rep., by Sh.Gourav Bharbgav, Managing Director,
 63,Rama Road, New Delhi − 110 015. And Others
 The State represented by Drugs Inspector,
 Chittoor, Through Public Prosecutor,
 High Court of Andhra Pradesh,
 Hyderabad.
 Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri Prabhakar Peri
 Counsel for the Respondents: Public Prosecutor
 :ORDER:
         The petitioners who are A.1 to A.3 in the proceedings seek to invoke the
 extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of
 Criminal Procedure (for brevity ’the Code’) to quash the proceedings in
 C.C.No.387 of 2003 on the file of the V Additional Munsif Magistrate, Chittoor.
 The State represented by Drugs Inspector filed a private complaint before the
 Court against the petitioners and four others for the offences punishable under
 Sections 18(a)(i) read with Sections 16 and 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act
 (for brevity ’the Act’) and under Section 18−B punishable with Section 28 of the
 said Act.

         It is alleged inter alia in the complaint that the Drugs Inspector who
 was in−charge of Tirupati inspected the premises of M/s.Sabari Medical Agencies
 on 19.01.2001. A.4 was present in the premises doing business. The complainant
 picked up CD Plex Capsules batch No.CDP−34 with manufacturing date March, 2000,
 expiry date August, 2001 manufactured by M/s.Cyper Drugs and Pharmaceuticals,
 New Delhi (A.1). Following the procedure envisaged under the Act and the Rules
 framed thereunder, the complainant took samples of the drug on the same day by
 issuing Form−18 dated 19.01.2001. He sent one sample thus taken to the
 Government Analyst who on analysis sent his report bearing No.917/DCL/2001 dated
 23.04.2001 with his remarks. It was opined intere alia therein that the sample
 does not conform to the Assay for Thiamine Hcl as per the labelled claim (0.362
 mg/capsule, claim = 1.0 mg/capsule). Thereupon the complainant on 01.05.2001
 addressed a letter under Section 18−A of the Act to A.4 requesting him to
 furnish name, address and other particulars of the person from whom he had
 acquired the drug. He received a reply dated 02.05.2001 from A.4 informing him
 inter alia that the drug in question was purchased from M/s.Sri Vinayaka Medical
 Agencies, Proddatur (A.5), under Invoice No.994 dated 12.05.2000. Accordingly
 the complainant addressed another letter dated 01.05.2001 to M/s.Sri Vinayaka
 Medical Agencies, Proddatur, requesting to disclose from whom it had purchased
 the subject drug. Simultaneously the complainant sent a portion of the sample
 and analyst report. On 10.07.2001 the complainant received a reply from A.5
 dated 28.06.2001 informing him inter alia that A.5 purchased the drug from
 M/s.Venkat Kishore Medical Distributors, Vijayawada (A.6), under Invoice Bill
 No.15/34 dated 27.03.2000. The complainant again on 17.07.2001 addressed a
 letter to A.6 which too having received the letter informed the complainant that
 it had purchased the drug in turn from M/s.Jai Shanti Medicos, New Delhi (A.7),
Indian Kanoon − http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1811953/
under Invoice Bill No.1674 dated 09.03.2001. On 30.08.2001 the complainant again
 addressed a letter to A.7 requesting to disclose from whom it had purchased the
 drug in question. On 10.01.2002 the complainant received a letter from A.7 that
 it had in turn purchased the subject drug from A.1 firm vide Invoice No.536
 dated 07.03.2000. The complainant, therefore, addressed five letters dated
 01.05.2001, 12.06.2001, 30.08.2001, 05.01.2002 and 22.05.2002 to A.1 but no
 reply was received so far from A.1 firm. After sending a detailed report to the
 Director, Drugs Control Administration, Hyderabad, and after having obtained the
 constitutional particulars of the A.1 firm, the complainant filed the complaint
 eventually before the Court.
         Cognizance was taken by the Court, as aforesaid, under Sections
 18(a)(i), 16 and 27(d) of the Act as against A.1 to A.7. Pursuant to the summons
 issued the petitioners who appeared before the Court filed the instant petition,
 as aforesaid, seeking to quash the proceedings as against them. Sri Prabhakar
 Peri, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, represents that there have
 been infraction of mandatory provisions of the Act in this case which entail the
 quashing of the case against the petitioners. The learned counsel further
 represents that the expiry date of the drug in question was obviously in the
 month of August, 2001 and having received the report of the Analyst on
 28.04.2001 the complainant lodged the complaint on 19.08.2003 and thereby
 deprived a valuable right to the petitioners in asking the Court to send the
 sample to Central Drugs Laboratory and thus the accused are prejudiced. It is
 his further contention that A.2 and A.3 being the Directors of A.1 company
 cannot be prosecuted without there being a whisper in the complaint inter alia
 that they were in−charge of the day to day affairs of A.1 company, in the
 absence of which the prosecution could not be maintained against them. The
 contention of the learned counsel thus seems to be two fold. It requires no
 factual analysis of the facts having due regard to the fact that the petitioners
 seek to quash the proceedings on the premise that it is nothing but abuse of the
 process of the Court.
 It is trite that in a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code this Court is
 expected to go by the averments made in the complaint, assuming them to be true
 without adding anything thereto or subtracting anything therefrom. For the
 purpose of considering a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code, the Court
 has to consider the averments made in the complaint and the documents, if any,
 annexed therewith. No extraneous material can be considered. Nor the parties can
 be permitted to lead evidence. This is the settled legal position. Along with
 the complaint a list of documents have been annexed, as enumerated in the
 complaint itself, as can be seen from a copy of the complaint filed in the
 instant case. A perusal of the averments made inter alia in the complaint and
 the documents annexed therewith prima facie shows that the complainant has
 lifted the samples of the drug in question having purchased the same duly in
 accordance with the provisions contained in the Act and the Rules framed
 thereunder from A.4 in the first instance, he then sent samples thus lifted for
 the purpose of analysis and eventually after analysis the Analyst opined that
 the drug in question does not conform to the standards as claimed on the label
 of the drug. Thus, it appears that there has been prima facie infraction of the
 provisions of the Act.

         The crucial question to be seen having due regard to the contentions
 raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is as to whether
 there has been inordinate delay in laying the complainant and as to whether the
 same has any prejudicial effect on the petitioners depriving them from availing
 the provisions under the Act by asking the Court to send the sample for fresh
 analysis by Central Drugs Laboratory. The provisions germane in the context are
 Sections 23 and 25 of the Act. Section 23 mandates that where an Inspector takes
 a sample of the drug for the purpose of test or analysis, he shall intimate the
 purpose in writing in the prescribed form to the person from whom he takes the
 sample and in the presence of such person, he shall divide the sample into four
 portions and effectively seal and suitably mark the same and permit such person
Indian Kanoon − http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1811953/
to add his own seal and mark on those portions. The Inspector shall restore one
 portion of a sample so divided to the person from whom he takes it and from
 remaining three portions, he shall forthwith send one sample to the Government
 Analyst for test or analysis; and he shall produce the second one before the
 Court before which proceedings, if any, may be instituted; and the third one he
 shall send to the person whose name, address and other particulars have been
 disclosed to him under Section 18−A of the Act. No infraction has been
 complained of in the compliance of the procedure as envisaged under Section 23
 of the Act is concerned. The next provision germane in the context is Section 25
 of the Act. Under sub−section (1) thereof the Analyst is obliged to submit his
 report and deliver the same to the Inspector in triplicate in the prescribed
 form. The Inspector who received the report in triplicate shall deliver one copy
 thereof to the person from whom the sample was lifted and another copy to the
 person, if any, whose name, address and other particulars have been disclosed
 under Section 18−A of the Act. The third one shall be retained with him to use
 for the purpose of prosecuting the offenders. The report given by the Analyst
 shall be evidence of the facts stated therein and the provision attaches
 conclusiveness to the report qua the person from whom the sample was taken or
 the person(s) whose name, address and other particulars have been disclosed
 under Section 18−A of the Act later. Sub−sections (3) and (4) of Section 25 are
 very much germane for the present purposes and they read as under: "25. Reports
 of Government Analysts:
         (3) Any document purporting to be a report signed by a Government
 Analyst under this Chapter shall be evidence of the facts stated therein, and
 such evidence shall be conclusive unless the person from whom the sample was
 taken or the person whose name, address and other particulars have been
 disclosed under Section 18−A has, within twenty−eight days of the receipt of a
 copy of the report, notified in writing the Inspector or the Court before which
 any proceedings in respect of the sample are pending that he intends to adduce
 evidence in controversion of the report.
 (4) Unless the sample has already been tested or analysed in the Central Drugs
 Laboratory, where a person has under sub−section (3) notified his intention of
 adducing evidence in controversion of a Government Analyst’s report, the Court
 may, of its own motion or in its discretion at the request either of the
 complainant or the accused cause the sample of the drug or cosmetic produced
 before the Magistrate under sub−section (4) of Section 23 to be sent for test or
 analysis to the said Laboratory, which shall make the test or analysis and
 report in writing signed by, or under the authority of, the Director of the
 Central Drugs Laboratory the result thereof, and such report shall be conclusive
 evidence of the facts stated therein."
         A perusal of the said provision shows that within 28 days of the receipt
 of a copy of the report the person from whom the sample was lifted should notify
 in writing the Inspector or the Court before which any proceedings in respect of
 the sample are pending expressing his intention to adduce evidence in
 controversion of the report. After such notification of his intention to lead
 evidence, the Court may of its own motion or in its discretion at the request
 either of the complainant or the accused, cause the sample of the drug produced
 before it under sub−section (4) of Section 23 to be sent for test or analysis to
 the Central Drugs Laboratory and the report given by the Director of the Central
 Drugs Laboratory shall be conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein. Thus,
 sub−sections (3) and (4) of Section 25 clearly envisage the procedure to be
 followed by the person from whom the samples are lifted or the other persons
 concerned in the event such person is in disagreement with the report given by
 the Government Analyst and intends to lead evidence in controversion of the said
 report.
 Having due regard to this legal position, as can be seen from Sections 23 and 25
 of the Act, it is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the
 petitioners that no such copy of the report has been given to the petitioners
Indian Kanoon − http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1811953/
and thereby the petitioners are denied of availing the valuable defence which
 caused much prejudice to them. At this juncture, one factual aspect needs a
 mention before adverting to the contention of the learned counsel. As can be
 seen from the complaint, the complainant−Drugs Inspector stated to have
 addressed five letters to A.1 company and no reply so far was given. Among the
 documents annexed to the complaint, a copy of the letter dated 01.05.2001 is the
 document that has been addressed by the complainant obviously to the A.1 company
 annexing duly therewith a photostat copy of Form−13 bearing No.917/DCL/2001
 dated 23.04.2001, i.e. a copy of the Analyst’s report. The question, therefore,
 arises is, in view of the contention raised by the learned counsel, as to
 whether that letter has been received by the accused/petitioners or not. As
 discussed hereinabove, what is required to be seen is the allegation mentioned
 in the complaint. The contention of the learned counsel that no such letter has
 been received by A.1 to A.3 and no acknowledgement in token thereof has been at
 least shown or annexed to the complaint at this stage merits no consideration.
 It has been clearly mentioned in the complaint inter alia that such a letter has
 been addressed and even four more letters have been addressed to A.1 company.
 Till such time that this averment is shown to be false, for the purpose of prima
 facie case it shall have to be taken into consideration. That apart, whenever it
 is stated before the Court that a letter has been posted to the address which is
 known or not shown to have been incorrect, presumption follows that in the chain
 of correspondence it forms a link and in natural course it has been received. It
 is for the addressee to show before the Court that no such letter has been
 received. Of course, it is a negative proof having due regard to the presumption
 under law, as can be seen from illustration (f) of Section 114 of the Indian
 Evidence Act. Indeed a copy of the letter, as discussed hereinabove, has been
 annexed to the complaint. Therefore, it is open still to the petitioners to show
 before the Court that the averment made inter alia in the complaint is not
 correct and no such letter in fact has been sent or has not been received by the
 accused. Such a proof can be shown before the criminal Court but not in a
 petition filed before this Court under Section 482 of the Code. For the purpose
 of the instant petition, suffice if an averment is made inter alia in the
 complaint mentioning specifically that a letter has been addressed to the
 accused and that constitutes a prima facie case. In view of this specific
 averment in the complaint and annexing a copy of the notice said to have been
 addressed by the complainant to the petitioners, prima facie it shall have to be
 considered that A.1 duly has also been informed by the complainant about the
 report of the Analyst while marking a copy of the report to him. Having due
 regard to the same, it is for A.1 to invoke the provisions of sub− section (3)
 and (4) of Section 25 of the Act. The provisions clearly envisage that either
 the Inspector or the Court shall be informed within 28 days from the date of
 receipt of a copy of the report expressing the express intention inter alia
 therein to adduce evidence in controversion of the report. It is not the case of
 the petitioners that any such notification in writing either has been given to
 the Inspector or before the Court. Of course, in the instant case, latter course
 is not open having due regard to the fact that the complaint in this case was
 filed on 19.08.2003. Even then it is no bar for notifying the Court about the
 intention of the petitioners. Filing of a complaint is not a sine qua non for
 notifying the Court about the intention of the accused to oppose the Analyst’s
 report and lead evidence in controversion of that report. Sub−section (3) of
 Section 25 of the Act clearly envisages that it shall be notified either to the
 Court or to the Inspector in writing. In the event of any such notification by
 the accused, then the Court on an application filed by either of the parties to
 the proceedings or suo motu can send the sample deposited with it by the Drugs
 Inspector to the Central Drugs Laboratory for the purpose of test or analysis.
 Without notifying the Inspector or the Court and without requesting the Court to
 send the sample to the Central Drugs Laboratory, it is not open to the
 petitioners to contend that a valuable right is lost and thereby they are
 prejudiced. It may be reiterated here that the petitioners need not wait till
 such time the Drugs Inspector chooses to file a complaint before the Court since
 it is not a sine qua non. On the factual matrix, the petitioners cannot
 legitimately complain any infraction of the provisions of sub−sections (3) and
Indian Kanoon − http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1811953/
(4) of Section 23 and Section 25 of the Act. That these provisions are mandatory
 in nature is beyond any doubt. The question, therefore, remains to be seen is
 whether any infraction thereof has been there or not. In this connection, the
 learned counsel appearing for the petitioners seeks to rely upon a Judgment of
 this Court in VETCHA VENKATA RAJU v. STATE OF A.P.1. It is obvious that it is a
 case where a trial was conducted against the petitioner which ended in
 conviction and in the eventual appeal filed assailing the conviction it was
 confirmed and, therefore, the petitioner approached the High Court in revision.
 At that stage it was contended that since the report of the Analyst was not
 supplied to the petitioner, he was crippled and thereby there had been an
 infraction of the mandatory provisions of Section 25 of the Act. Sufficient
 evidence seems to have been produced before the Court in proof of non−supply of
 the report. The said decision obviously was not germane in the present context
 for the simple reason that no trial has yet been commenced against the accused
 and, therefore, the question of proof does not arise. The case is obviously at
 the threshold and, as discussed hereinabove, it shall be still shown by the
 petitioners before the Court that they have not received any intimation from the
 Drugs Inspector. Therefore, the said decision has no application to the present
 facts.
         Another Judgment sought to be relied upon by the learned counsel is in
 DRUGS INSPECTOR, C.D.S.C.O. (SOUTH) ZONE, MADRAS v. MODERN DRUGS2. The Madras
 High Court too has taken the same view. As discussed hereinabove, there can be
 no disagreement with the proposition of law that the provisions contained in
 Section 25 of the Act are mandatory in nature. The case before the Madras High
 Court was again a case where trial was conducted, necessary documents were
 filed, and witnesses were examined. From the evidence thus adduced both oral and
 documentary before the Court, it was not shown before the Court that any such
 report was given to the petitioner. Therefore, as in the case of Vetcha Venkata
 Raju’s case, this decision too has no application to the matrix of the instant
 case.
         The learned counsel further seeks to reply upon a Judgment of the Apex
 Court in STATE OF HARYANA v. UNIQUE FARMAID (P) LTD.3. That was a case arising
 out of the provisions of the Insecticides Act. It was contended before the Apex
 Court that by not following the mandatory provisions of Section 24 of the said
 Act the prosecution deprived the accused to have the samples tested by the
 Central Insecticides Laboratory and to adduce evidence against the report given
 by the Analyst in the first instance. Having due regard to the provisions of the
 said Act and the matrix of that case, the Apex Court was of the view that the
 accused had been deprived of valuable right statutorily available to him.
 Section 24 of the Insecticides Act is in pari materia with Section 25 of the
 present Act. That was a case where the respondents company was notified by
 supplying a copy of the report to it and in reply thereto, the company expressed
 its intention to adduce evidence in support of its contention and to get the
 sample analysed by the Central Insecticides Laboratory as per the provisions of
 Section 24 of the said Act at the cost of the company. The Inspector of
 Insecticides did not advert to this request of the company, instead filed a
 criminal complaint against the respondent company and five others. Under those
 circumstances, the Apex Court was of the view that a valuable right of the
 respondent company was lost and that too having due regard to the fact that the
 complaint was lodged long after that request, by which time the shelf life of
 the sample was lost.

 The facts in the instant case are a little bit different. The petitioners have
 not notified obviously to the Drugs Inspector about their intention to lead
 evidence qua the Analyst’s report. Although the complaint was filed long after
 the expiry of the drug in question, having failed to notify the Inspector as
 envisaged under sub−section (4) of Section 25 of the Act, it is now not open to
 the petitioners to contend that they lost a valuable right. Delay in filing the
 complaint, if any, is of no consequence having due regard to the above facts.
 The Apex Court in STATE OF HARYANA v. BRIJ LAL MITTAL AND OTHERS4 has taken a
Indian Kanoon − http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1811953/
different view. The offence involved therein was under the provisions of the
 Drugs and Cosmetics Act as in the instant case. The Apex Court while adverting
 to the provisions of Section 25(3) and (4) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act held
 thus:
 "The right to get the sample examined by the Central Drugs Laboratory through
 the court before which the prosecution is launched arises only after the person
 concerned notifies in writing the Inspector or the court concerned within
 twenty−eight days from the receipt of the copy of the report of the Government
 Analyst that he intends to adduce evidence in controversion of the report. In
 the instant case in spite of service of copies of the report of the Government
 Analyst, the manufacturers did not exercise their right and on the contrary,
 they asserted that their Quality Control Department examined and tested samples
 of the two drugs and found that they complied with the test of sterility. It
 must, therefore, be said that consequent upon their failure to notify the
 Inspector that they intended to adduce evidence in controversion of the report
 within 28 days, not only the right of the manufacturers to get the sample tested
 by the Central Drugs Laboratory through the court concerned stood extinguished
 but the report of the Government Analyst also became conclusive evidence under
 sub−section (3). The delay in filing the complaint till the expiry of the shelf−
 life of the drugs could not, therefore, have been made a ground by the High
 Court to quash the prosecution."
 The Apex Court in Unique Farmaid (P) Ltd.’s case although noted its earlier
 Judgment in Brij Lal Mittal’s case, however, it has neither distinguished nor
 dissented from the view expressed by it in Brij Lal Mittal’s case. Both the
 Judgments have been rendered by co−equal Benches. However, the Judgment in Brij
 Lal Mittal’s case having been rendered under the provisions of the Drugs and
 Cosmetics Act, it applies in all force to the matrix of the instant case. Even
 otherwise, both the Judgments are distinguishable on facts. In Unique Farmaid
 (P) Ltd.’s case, the company expressed its intention to adduce evidence by
 notifying the Insecticides Inspector and wanted to get the sample analysed by
 the Central Insecticides Laboratory. However, the Insecticides Inspector failed
 to accede the request of the company unlike in the latter case where the company
 failed to notify the Drugs Inspector expressing its intention to adduce evidence
 against the report of the Analyst and to get the sample analysed by the Central
 Drugs Laboratory which is the crucial distinguishing factor. In that view of the
 matter, the Judgment in Unique Farmaid (P) Ltd.’s case has no application to the
 matrix of the instant case.
 Without expressing any intention about leading evidence qua the report of the
 Analyst, the petitioners cannot be heard to say that they have been prejudiced,
 that too when it is for the Analyst or the Expert, as the case may be, to say
 that a particular sample having regard to the passage of time or delay, is still
 fit or not fit for test or analysis. It is not for the Courts to just surmise or
 assume certain things in respect of the matters which are exclusively within the
 domain of the Experts. Merely because the expiry date of the drug in question as
 mentioned on the label of the drug was August, 2001 it cannot automatically be
 concluded that after expiry of that date, the sample could not be analysed and,
 therefore, the persons from whom the samples were lifted will be highly
 prejudiced. Without any action on their part, such a plea is not permissible, in
 my considered view. In fact, that has been the view expressed by the Apex Court
 too. For the above reasons, the first contention of the learned counsel
 appearing for the petitioners merits no consideration.
 As regards the second contention, obviously it is contrary to the existing state
 of affairs. In the complaint it has been specifically averred that A.1 is the
 company, A.2 is the Managing Director and A.3 is the Approved Manufacturing
 Chemist thereof. Having due regard to these descriptions given in the complaint,
 it is not now open to the petitioners to contend that the petitioners 2 and 3
 who are A.2 and A.3 are the Directors of the A.1 company and in the absence of
 any allegation in the complaint inter alia that they are in−charge of the day to
Indian Kanoon − http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1811953/
day affairs of the company, no prosecution can be maintained qua them. Section
 34 of the Act deals with the offences by the companies. In the event the accused
 is a company or a firm or a group of persons, the provision enables the
 procedure to be followed by the prosecuting agency against the company or its
 Directors; or both. By fiction of law, the provision mandates that the company
 as well as its Directors are liable and vicarious liability is attached to the
 Directors though their actual involvement has not been there in the infraction
 of the provisions of the Act. Having due regard to the vicarious nature of the
 liability, the Act envisages certain precautions to be taken before hauling up
 the persons vicariously liable although they have not actually violated any
 provisions of the Act. Such a provision is not applicable in cases of the
 persons who are directly in the control of the company. The Managing Director of
 the company cannot escape with impunity from any liability on the premise that
 he is not in−charge of the day to day affairs of the company. He being the
 Managing Director will obviously be at the helm of the affairs of the company.
 Such a plea can validly be taken by the other Directors who are not in−charge of
 the affairs of the company. On that score alone, the contention of the learned
 counsel merits no consideration. Section 34 of the Act is in pari materia with
 Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and Section 33 of the Insecticides
 Act. All these provisions are in pari materia. Adverting to Section 141 of the
 Negotiable Instruments Act and having regard to the divergence of opinion
 expressed by various High Courts in several Judgments, on a reference the Apex
 Court by a three Judge Bench authoritatively resolved the divergence in S.M.S.
 PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. v. NEETA BHALLA5. The Apex Court in its Judgment at the end
 summed up the legal position in para 18 and in para 19 answered the queries
 thus:
 "18. To sum up, there is almost unanimous judicial opinion that necessary
 averments ought to be contained in a complaint before a person can be subjected
 to criminal process. A liability under Section 141 of the Act is sought to be
 fastened vicariously on a person connected with a company, the principal accused
 being the company itself. It is a departure from the rule in criminal law
 against vicarious liability. A clear case should be spelled out in the complaint
 against the person sought to be made liable. Section 141 of the Act contains the
 requirements for making a person liable under the said provision. That the
 respondent falls within the parameters of Section 141 has to be spelled out. A
 complaint has to be examined by the Magistrate in the first instance on the
 basis of averments contained therein. If the Magistrate is satisfied that there
 are averments which bring the case within Section 141, he would issue the
 process. We have seen that merely being described as a director in a company is
 not sufficient to satisfy the requirement of Section 141. Even a non−director
 can be liable under Section 141 of the Act. The averments in the complaint would
 also serve the purpose that the person sought to be made liable would know what
 is the case which is alleged against him. This will enable him to meet the case
 at the trial.
 19. In view of the above discussion, our answers to the questions posed in the
 reference are as under:
 (a) It is necessary to specifically aver in a complaint under Section 141 that
 at the time the offence was committed, the person accused was in charge of, and
 responsible for the conduct of business of the company. This averment is an
 essential requirement of Section 141 and has to be made in a complaint. Without
 this averment being made in a complaint, the requirements of Section 141 cannot
 be said to be satisfied.
 (b) The answer to the question posed in sub−para (b) has to be in the negative.
 Merely being a director of a company is not sufficient to make the person liable
 under Section 141 of the Act. A director in a company cannot be deemed to be in
 charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of its business. The
 requirement of Section 141 is that the person sought to be made liable should be
 in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company at
Indian Kanoon − http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1811953/
the relevant time. This has to be averred as a fact as there is no deemed
 liability of a director in such cases.
 (c) The answer to Question (c) has to be in the affirmative. The question notes
 that the managing director or joint managing director would be admittedly in
 charge of the company and responsible to the company for the conduct of its
 business. When that is so, holders of such positions in a company become liable
 under Section 141 of the Act. By virtue of the office they hold as managing
 director or joint managing director, these persons are in charge of and
 responsible for the conduct of business of the company. Therefore, they get
 covered under Section 141. So far as the signatory of a cheque which is
 dishonoured is concerned, he is clearly responsible for the incriminating act
 and will be covered under sub−section (2) of Section 141."
         Clause (a) of para 19 of the said Judgment of the Apex Court shows
 specifically that necessary averment shall be made in the complaint that at the
 time offence was committed, the person accused was in−charge of and responsible
 for the conduct of business of the company without which the requirement of
 Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act cannot be said to be satisfied. In
 clause (c) the Apex Court held that in respect of the Managing director or Joint
 Managing Director they would be admittedly in−charge of the company and
 responsible to the company for the conduct of its business and when that was so,
 holders of such positions in a company become liable under Section 141 of the
 Negotiable Instruments Act. By virtue of the office they hold as Managing
 Director or Joint Managing Director, those persons would be in−charge of and
 responsible for the conduct of business of the company. Therefore, they get
 covered under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It may be mentioned
 here at the cost of repetition, that in the instant case, it has been
 specifically averred, as discussed hereinabove, that A.2 is the Managing
 Director and A.3 is the Approved Manufacturing Chemist. They have not been
 described as the Directors of A.1 company. A.2 being the Managing Director at
 the helm of affairs cannot now be heard to say that he is only a Director and in
 the absence of any specific averment in the complaint that he is in−charge of
 day to day affairs of the company, no prosecution can be maintained as against
 him. Simultaneously, A.3 being the Approved Manufacturing Chemist of A.1
 company, having due regard to the nature of the accusation that the drug in
 question manufactured by the A.1 company appears to be not in conformity with
 the standards prescribed, he cannot legitimately contend that he is not in−
 charge of the aforesaid function. Obviously, both the contentions raised by the
 learned counsel appearing for the petitioners thus, for the reasons hereinabove
 discussed, merit no consideration.

  In the result, the Criminal Petition fails and is dismissed.

 ?1 1993 (1) Crimes 739 (AP)

 2 1982 CRI.L.J. 2285

 3 (1999) 8 SCC 190

 4 (1998) 5 SCC 343

 5 2005 SCC (Cri) 1975 = (2005) 8 SCC 89




Indian Kanoon − http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1811953/

Más contenido relacionado

La actualidad más candente

61306823 common-law-case
61306823 common-law-case61306823 common-law-case
61306823 common-law-casehomeworkping4
 
Kerala hc order former mla protest
Kerala hc order former mla protestKerala hc order former mla protest
Kerala hc order former mla protestZahidManiyar
 
Second Appeal against Department of Legal Affairs dated 3_11_ 2016
Second Appeal against Department of Legal Affairs dated 3_11_ 2016Second Appeal against Department of Legal Affairs dated 3_11_ 2016
Second Appeal against Department of Legal Affairs dated 3_11_ 2016Om Prakash Poddar
 
Misher ali-judgment-24-mar-2021 (1)
Misher ali-judgment-24-mar-2021 (1)Misher ali-judgment-24-mar-2021 (1)
Misher ali-judgment-24-mar-2021 (1)ZahidManiyar
 
40158 2019 32_1501_25867_judgement_01-feb-2021
40158 2019 32_1501_25867_judgement_01-feb-202140158 2019 32_1501_25867_judgement_01-feb-2021
40158 2019 32_1501_25867_judgement_01-feb-2021ZahidManiyar
 
RTI Sikkim Rules ppt
RTI  Sikkim Rules pptRTI  Sikkim Rules ppt
RTI Sikkim Rules pptBhim Thatal
 
RTI ACT, 2005 PROCEDURE FOR REQUESTING APPLICATION, APPEAL, COMPLAINT
RTI ACT, 2005 PROCEDURE FOR REQUESTING APPLICATION, APPEAL, COMPLAINTRTI ACT, 2005 PROCEDURE FOR REQUESTING APPLICATION, APPEAL, COMPLAINT
RTI ACT, 2005 PROCEDURE FOR REQUESTING APPLICATION, APPEAL, COMPLAINTPrakash Prakash
 
State bank of_india_v__ajay_kumar_sood
State bank of_india_v__ajay_kumar_soodState bank of_india_v__ajay_kumar_sood
State bank of_india_v__ajay_kumar_soodsabrangsabrang
 
Second Appeal against Patna High Court_03_11_2016
Second Appeal against Patna High Court_03_11_2016Second Appeal against Patna High Court_03_11_2016
Second Appeal against Patna High Court_03_11_2016Om Prakash Poddar
 
Gauhati hc santosh das v uoi (1)
Gauhati hc santosh das v uoi (1)Gauhati hc santosh das v uoi (1)
Gauhati hc santosh das v uoi (1)ZahidManiyar
 
Vinod dua judgment
Vinod dua judgmentVinod dua judgment
Vinod dua judgmentZahidManiyar
 
Gauhati hc judgement july 15
Gauhati hc judgement july 15Gauhati hc judgement july 15
Gauhati hc judgement july 15ZahidManiyar
 
Slp 27734 -12(supreme court judgment)
Slp 27734 -12(supreme court judgment)Slp 27734 -12(supreme court judgment)
Slp 27734 -12(supreme court judgment)Lalith Babu
 
Bom hc nagpur july 29 order
Bom hc nagpur july 29 orderBom hc nagpur july 29 order
Bom hc nagpur july 29 orderZahidManiyar
 
Political parties come under rti act- Central Information Commission
Political parties come under rti act- Central Information CommissionPolitical parties come under rti act- Central Information Commission
Political parties come under rti act- Central Information CommissionLalith Babu
 
Second Appeal dated 21.04.2017 before CIC New Delhi against Non-disclosure of...
Second Appeal dated 21.04.2017 before CIC New Delhi against Non-disclosure of...Second Appeal dated 21.04.2017 before CIC New Delhi against Non-disclosure of...
Second Appeal dated 21.04.2017 before CIC New Delhi against Non-disclosure of...Om Prakash Poddar
 
Are the rights and obligations arising from a license transferable under Arti...
Are the rights and obligations arising from a license transferable under Arti...Are the rights and obligations arising from a license transferable under Arti...
Are the rights and obligations arising from a license transferable under Arti...Michal
 

La actualidad más candente (19)

61306823 common-law-case
61306823 common-law-case61306823 common-law-case
61306823 common-law-case
 
Kerala hc order former mla protest
Kerala hc order former mla protestKerala hc order former mla protest
Kerala hc order former mla protest
 
Second Appeal against Department of Legal Affairs dated 3_11_ 2016
Second Appeal against Department of Legal Affairs dated 3_11_ 2016Second Appeal against Department of Legal Affairs dated 3_11_ 2016
Second Appeal against Department of Legal Affairs dated 3_11_ 2016
 
Misher ali-judgment-24-mar-2021 (1)
Misher ali-judgment-24-mar-2021 (1)Misher ali-judgment-24-mar-2021 (1)
Misher ali-judgment-24-mar-2021 (1)
 
40158 2019 32_1501_25867_judgement_01-feb-2021
40158 2019 32_1501_25867_judgement_01-feb-202140158 2019 32_1501_25867_judgement_01-feb-2021
40158 2019 32_1501_25867_judgement_01-feb-2021
 
Sc ec judgment
Sc ec judgmentSc ec judgment
Sc ec judgment
 
RTI Sikkim Rules ppt
RTI  Sikkim Rules pptRTI  Sikkim Rules ppt
RTI Sikkim Rules ppt
 
Sc may 21 order
Sc may 21 orderSc may 21 order
Sc may 21 order
 
RTI ACT, 2005 PROCEDURE FOR REQUESTING APPLICATION, APPEAL, COMPLAINT
RTI ACT, 2005 PROCEDURE FOR REQUESTING APPLICATION, APPEAL, COMPLAINTRTI ACT, 2005 PROCEDURE FOR REQUESTING APPLICATION, APPEAL, COMPLAINT
RTI ACT, 2005 PROCEDURE FOR REQUESTING APPLICATION, APPEAL, COMPLAINT
 
State bank of_india_v__ajay_kumar_sood
State bank of_india_v__ajay_kumar_soodState bank of_india_v__ajay_kumar_sood
State bank of_india_v__ajay_kumar_sood
 
Second Appeal against Patna High Court_03_11_2016
Second Appeal against Patna High Court_03_11_2016Second Appeal against Patna High Court_03_11_2016
Second Appeal against Patna High Court_03_11_2016
 
Gauhati hc santosh das v uoi (1)
Gauhati hc santosh das v uoi (1)Gauhati hc santosh das v uoi (1)
Gauhati hc santosh das v uoi (1)
 
Vinod dua judgment
Vinod dua judgmentVinod dua judgment
Vinod dua judgment
 
Gauhati hc judgement july 15
Gauhati hc judgement july 15Gauhati hc judgement july 15
Gauhati hc judgement july 15
 
Slp 27734 -12(supreme court judgment)
Slp 27734 -12(supreme court judgment)Slp 27734 -12(supreme court judgment)
Slp 27734 -12(supreme court judgment)
 
Bom hc nagpur july 29 order
Bom hc nagpur july 29 orderBom hc nagpur july 29 order
Bom hc nagpur july 29 order
 
Political parties come under rti act- Central Information Commission
Political parties come under rti act- Central Information CommissionPolitical parties come under rti act- Central Information Commission
Political parties come under rti act- Central Information Commission
 
Second Appeal dated 21.04.2017 before CIC New Delhi against Non-disclosure of...
Second Appeal dated 21.04.2017 before CIC New Delhi against Non-disclosure of...Second Appeal dated 21.04.2017 before CIC New Delhi against Non-disclosure of...
Second Appeal dated 21.04.2017 before CIC New Delhi against Non-disclosure of...
 
Are the rights and obligations arising from a license transferable under Arti...
Are the rights and obligations arising from a license transferable under Arti...Are the rights and obligations arising from a license transferable under Arti...
Are the rights and obligations arising from a license transferable under Arti...
 

Destacado

The Appellant And His Father Were Charged U
The Appellant And His Father Were Charged UThe Appellant And His Father Were Charged U
The Appellant And His Father Were Charged Umsdhillon72
 
Water security for Delhi: a case study of government projects
Water security for Delhi: a case study of government projectsWater security for Delhi: a case study of government projects
Water security for Delhi: a case study of government projectsAnupam Saraph
 
Principles and reforms summary
Principles and reforms summaryPrinciples and reforms summary
Principles and reforms summaryAnupam Saraph
 
The Respondent Is A Partner Of The Firm Cashew Nut Cases
The Respondent Is A Partner Of The Firm Cashew Nut CasesThe Respondent Is A Partner Of The Firm Cashew Nut Cases
The Respondent Is A Partner Of The Firm Cashew Nut Casesmsdhillon72
 
The Petitioners Are Traders In Foodgrains
The Petitioners Are Traders In FoodgrainsThe Petitioners Are Traders In Foodgrains
The Petitioners Are Traders In Foodgrainsmsdhillon72
 
The Appellant Was A Dealer In Milk
The Appellant Was A Dealer In MilkThe Appellant Was A Dealer In Milk
The Appellant Was A Dealer In Milkmsdhillon72
 
The Next Projects in Governance
The Next Projects in GovernanceThe Next Projects in Governance
The Next Projects in GovernanceAnupam Saraph
 
Designing a nervous system for cities
Designing a nervous system for citiesDesigning a nervous system for cities
Designing a nervous system for citiesAnupam Saraph
 

Destacado (9)

The Appellant And His Father Were Charged U
The Appellant And His Father Were Charged UThe Appellant And His Father Were Charged U
The Appellant And His Father Were Charged U
 
Water security for Delhi: a case study of government projects
Water security for Delhi: a case study of government projectsWater security for Delhi: a case study of government projects
Water security for Delhi: a case study of government projects
 
Principles and reforms summary
Principles and reforms summaryPrinciples and reforms summary
Principles and reforms summary
 
The Respondent Is A Partner Of The Firm Cashew Nut Cases
The Respondent Is A Partner Of The Firm Cashew Nut CasesThe Respondent Is A Partner Of The Firm Cashew Nut Cases
The Respondent Is A Partner Of The Firm Cashew Nut Cases
 
The Petitioners Are Traders In Foodgrains
The Petitioners Are Traders In FoodgrainsThe Petitioners Are Traders In Foodgrains
The Petitioners Are Traders In Foodgrains
 
The Appellant Was A Dealer In Milk
The Appellant Was A Dealer In MilkThe Appellant Was A Dealer In Milk
The Appellant Was A Dealer In Milk
 
The Next Projects in Governance
The Next Projects in GovernanceThe Next Projects in Governance
The Next Projects in Governance
 
Designing a nervous system for cities
Designing a nervous system for citiesDesigning a nervous system for cities
Designing a nervous system for cities
 
RTI section 4
RTI section 4RTI section 4
RTI section 4
 

Similar a Cyper Drugs And Pharmaceuticals Vs The State Represented By Drugs On 28 November, 2006

Jethmal Himmatmal Jain And Others Vs State Of Maharashtra On 12 March, 1981 (1)
Jethmal Himmatmal Jain And Others Vs State Of Maharashtra On 12 March, 1981 (1)Jethmal Himmatmal Jain And Others Vs State Of Maharashtra On 12 March, 1981 (1)
Jethmal Himmatmal Jain And Others Vs State Of Maharashtra On 12 March, 1981 (1)msdhillon72
 
Cpc learning module 6 suit in particular cases
Cpc learning module 6 suit in particular casesCpc learning module 6 suit in particular cases
Cpc learning module 6 suit in particular casesDr. Vikas Khakare
 
Criminal law Pcpndt act a case study.pptx
Criminal law Pcpndt act a case study.pptxCriminal law Pcpndt act a case study.pptx
Criminal law Pcpndt act a case study.pptxrakeshecoangul
 
Jl1 drugs and cosmetics act, 1940 and rules part iii part iv
Jl1 drugs and cosmetics act, 1940 and rules part iii part ivJl1 drugs and cosmetics act, 1940 and rules part iii part iv
Jl1 drugs and cosmetics act, 1940 and rules part iii part ivNabeela Moosakutty
 
Surendra gadling order
Surendra gadling orderSurendra gadling order
Surendra gadling ordersabrangsabrang
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO: 1:20CV21601
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO: 1:20CV21601UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO: 1:20CV21601
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO: 1:20CV21601Fundacion ACCION 13
 
Kappan medical bail order
Kappan medical bail orderKappan medical bail order
Kappan medical bail orderZahidManiyar
 
Uapa bail sc judgement 09-apr-2021
Uapa bail sc judgement 09-apr-2021Uapa bail sc judgement 09-apr-2021
Uapa bail sc judgement 09-apr-2021sabrangsabrang
 
Opposition Proceedings under Trademarks Act, 1999
Opposition Proceedings under Trademarks Act, 1999Opposition Proceedings under Trademarks Act, 1999
Opposition Proceedings under Trademarks Act, 1999DVSResearchFoundatio
 
Cobra Post Delhi HC Order
Cobra Post Delhi HC OrderCobra Post Delhi HC Order
Cobra Post Delhi HC Ordersabrangsabrang
 
Mp hc wp 9799 2021_final_order_28-jul-2021
Mp hc wp 9799 2021_final_order_28-jul-2021Mp hc wp 9799 2021_final_order_28-jul-2021
Mp hc wp 9799 2021_final_order_28-jul-2021ZahidManiyar
 
Trial memorandum
Trial memorandumTrial memorandum
Trial memorandumAJmon2530
 
Drugs & Cosmetics Act 1940 part III
Drugs & Cosmetics Act 1940 part IIIDrugs & Cosmetics Act 1940 part III
Drugs & Cosmetics Act 1940 part IIIPranay Sethiya
 
Virginia Rules of The Court
Virginia Rules of The CourtVirginia Rules of The Court
Virginia Rules of The CourtChuck Thompson
 
Lawweb.in whether it is necessary to make enquiry us 202 of crpc in case of d...
Lawweb.in whether it is necessary to make enquiry us 202 of crpc in case of d...Lawweb.in whether it is necessary to make enquiry us 202 of crpc in case of d...
Lawweb.in whether it is necessary to make enquiry us 202 of crpc in case of d...Law Web
 
Strategic roadmap
Strategic roadmapStrategic roadmap
Strategic roadmapnicfs
 

Similar a Cyper Drugs And Pharmaceuticals Vs The State Represented By Drugs On 28 November, 2006 (20)

Jethmal Himmatmal Jain And Others Vs State Of Maharashtra On 12 March, 1981 (1)
Jethmal Himmatmal Jain And Others Vs State Of Maharashtra On 12 March, 1981 (1)Jethmal Himmatmal Jain And Others Vs State Of Maharashtra On 12 March, 1981 (1)
Jethmal Himmatmal Jain And Others Vs State Of Maharashtra On 12 March, 1981 (1)
 
Cpc learning module 6 suit in particular cases
Cpc learning module 6 suit in particular casesCpc learning module 6 suit in particular cases
Cpc learning module 6 suit in particular cases
 
Dr. Kumar Bail Order
Dr. Kumar Bail OrderDr. Kumar Bail Order
Dr. Kumar Bail Order
 
Criminal law Pcpndt act a case study.pptx
Criminal law Pcpndt act a case study.pptxCriminal law Pcpndt act a case study.pptx
Criminal law Pcpndt act a case study.pptx
 
Jl1 drugs and cosmetics act, 1940 and rules part iii part iv
Jl1 drugs and cosmetics act, 1940 and rules part iii part ivJl1 drugs and cosmetics act, 1940 and rules part iii part iv
Jl1 drugs and cosmetics act, 1940 and rules part iii part iv
 
Provisions for drug registration CFDA
Provisions for drug registration CFDAProvisions for drug registration CFDA
Provisions for drug registration CFDA
 
Surendra gadling order
Surendra gadling orderSurendra gadling order
Surendra gadling order
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO: 1:20CV21601
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO: 1:20CV21601UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO: 1:20CV21601
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO: 1:20CV21601
 
2013-HPA-151(a)
2013-HPA-151(a)2013-HPA-151(a)
2013-HPA-151(a)
 
Kappan medical bail order
Kappan medical bail orderKappan medical bail order
Kappan medical bail order
 
Uapa bail sc judgement 09-apr-2021
Uapa bail sc judgement 09-apr-2021Uapa bail sc judgement 09-apr-2021
Uapa bail sc judgement 09-apr-2021
 
Opposition Proceedings under Trademarks Act, 1999
Opposition Proceedings under Trademarks Act, 1999Opposition Proceedings under Trademarks Act, 1999
Opposition Proceedings under Trademarks Act, 1999
 
Cobra Post Delhi HC Order
Cobra Post Delhi HC OrderCobra Post Delhi HC Order
Cobra Post Delhi HC Order
 
Mp hc wp 9799 2021_final_order_28-jul-2021
Mp hc wp 9799 2021_final_order_28-jul-2021Mp hc wp 9799 2021_final_order_28-jul-2021
Mp hc wp 9799 2021_final_order_28-jul-2021
 
Trial memorandum
Trial memorandumTrial memorandum
Trial memorandum
 
Drugs & Cosmetics Act 1940 part III
Drugs & Cosmetics Act 1940 part IIIDrugs & Cosmetics Act 1940 part III
Drugs & Cosmetics Act 1940 part III
 
Virginia Rules of The Court
Virginia Rules of The CourtVirginia Rules of The Court
Virginia Rules of The Court
 
Lawweb.in whether it is necessary to make enquiry us 202 of crpc in case of d...
Lawweb.in whether it is necessary to make enquiry us 202 of crpc in case of d...Lawweb.in whether it is necessary to make enquiry us 202 of crpc in case of d...
Lawweb.in whether it is necessary to make enquiry us 202 of crpc in case of d...
 
Strategic roadmap
Strategic roadmapStrategic roadmap
Strategic roadmap
 
Law of torts
Law of tortsLaw of torts
Law of torts
 

Más de msdhillon72

Mohalidetail Of Pfa Cases To Launch Dec 08 Detail 1 9 Mohali Launched
Mohalidetail Of Pfa Cases To Launch Dec 08 Detail 1 9 Mohali LaunchedMohalidetail Of Pfa Cases To Launch Dec 08 Detail 1 9 Mohali Launched
Mohalidetail Of Pfa Cases To Launch Dec 08 Detail 1 9 Mohali Launchedmsdhillon72
 
List Of Court Cases Launched In The Court Of Food Law 1 5
List Of Court Cases Launched In The Court Of Food Law   1 5List Of Court Cases Launched In The Court Of Food Law   1 5
List Of Court Cases Launched In The Court Of Food Law 1 5msdhillon72
 
Letter To Chiel Analyst Gundy
Letter To Chiel Analyst GundyLetter To Chiel Analyst Gundy
Letter To Chiel Analyst Gundymsdhillon72
 
Kharar Mohali Pfa Detail Launched
Kharar  Mohali Pfa Detail LaunchedKharar  Mohali Pfa Detail Launched
Kharar Mohali Pfa Detail Launchedmsdhillon72
 
Intimation Of Destroying
Intimation Of DestroyingIntimation Of Destroying
Intimation Of Destroyingmsdhillon72
 
In The Court Of Sh
In The Court Of  ShIn The Court Of  Sh
In The Court Of Shmsdhillon72
 
Fica Web Com Contacts
Fica Web Com ContactsFica Web Com Contacts
Fica Web Com Contactsmsdhillon72
 
Ferozepur Official Directory
Ferozepur     Official DirectoryFerozepur     Official Directory
Ferozepur Official Directorymsdhillon72
 
Detail Of April 09 Sampling
Detail Of April 09 SamplingDetail Of April 09 Sampling
Detail Of April 09 Samplingmsdhillon72
 
Detail Of Samples Seized During Month Reopt
Detail Of Samples Seized During Month ReoptDetail Of Samples Seized During Month Reopt
Detail Of Samples Seized During Month Reoptmsdhillon72
 
Desroying Perishable Food Articles
Desroying Perishable Food ArticlesDesroying Perishable Food Articles
Desroying Perishable Food Articlesmsdhillon72
 
Court Cases Launched In The Court Of Law Barnala State Vs1 9
Court Cases Launched In The Court Of Law Barnala State Vs1 9Court Cases Launched In The Court Of Law Barnala State Vs1 9
Court Cases Launched In The Court Of Law Barnala State Vs1 9msdhillon72
 
Court Cases Dates
Court Cases DatesCourt Cases Dates
Court Cases Datesmsdhillon72
 
Court Cases Launched In The Court Of Law Barnala State Vs
Court Cases Launched In The Court Of Law Barnala State VsCourt Cases Launched In The Court Of Law Barnala State Vs
Court Cases Launched In The Court Of Law Barnala State Vsmsdhillon72
 
Copy Of Ropar Detail Court Cases 1 8 Dates
Copy Of Ropar Detail Court Cases 1 8 DatesCopy Of Ropar Detail Court Cases 1 8 Dates
Copy Of Ropar Detail Court Cases 1 8 Datesmsdhillon72
 
Copy Of Court Cases Launched In The Court Of Law
Copy Of Court Cases Launched In The Court Of LawCopy Of Court Cases Launched In The Court Of Law
Copy Of Court Cases Launched In The Court Of Lawmsdhillon72
 

Más de msdhillon72 (20)

Mohalidetail Of Pfa Cases To Launch Dec 08 Detail 1 9 Mohali Launched
Mohalidetail Of Pfa Cases To Launch Dec 08 Detail 1 9 Mohali LaunchedMohalidetail Of Pfa Cases To Launch Dec 08 Detail 1 9 Mohali Launched
Mohalidetail Of Pfa Cases To Launch Dec 08 Detail 1 9 Mohali Launched
 
List Of Court Cases Launched In The Court Of Food Law 1 5
List Of Court Cases Launched In The Court Of Food Law   1 5List Of Court Cases Launched In The Court Of Food Law   1 5
List Of Court Cases Launched In The Court Of Food Law 1 5
 
Letter To Chiel Analyst Gundy
Letter To Chiel Analyst GundyLetter To Chiel Analyst Gundy
Letter To Chiel Analyst Gundy
 
Kharar Mohali Pfa Detail Launched
Kharar  Mohali Pfa Detail LaunchedKharar  Mohali Pfa Detail Launched
Kharar Mohali Pfa Detail Launched
 
Jan
JanJan
Jan
 
Intimation Of Destroying
Intimation Of DestroyingIntimation Of Destroying
Intimation Of Destroying
 
In The Court Of Sh
In The Court Of  ShIn The Court Of  Sh
In The Court Of Sh
 
Happynew Year
Happynew YearHappynew Year
Happynew Year
 
Gramnyayalayas
GramnyayalayasGramnyayalayas
Gramnyayalayas
 
Form Vii
Form ViiForm Vii
Form Vii
 
Fica Web Com Contacts
Fica Web Com ContactsFica Web Com Contacts
Fica Web Com Contacts
 
Ferozepur Official Directory
Ferozepur     Official DirectoryFerozepur     Official Directory
Ferozepur Official Directory
 
Detail Of April 09 Sampling
Detail Of April 09 SamplingDetail Of April 09 Sampling
Detail Of April 09 Sampling
 
Detail Of Samples Seized During Month Reopt
Detail Of Samples Seized During Month ReoptDetail Of Samples Seized During Month Reopt
Detail Of Samples Seized During Month Reopt
 
Desroying Perishable Food Articles
Desroying Perishable Food ArticlesDesroying Perishable Food Articles
Desroying Perishable Food Articles
 
Court Cases Launched In The Court Of Law Barnala State Vs1 9
Court Cases Launched In The Court Of Law Barnala State Vs1 9Court Cases Launched In The Court Of Law Barnala State Vs1 9
Court Cases Launched In The Court Of Law Barnala State Vs1 9
 
Court Cases Dates
Court Cases DatesCourt Cases Dates
Court Cases Dates
 
Court Cases Launched In The Court Of Law Barnala State Vs
Court Cases Launched In The Court Of Law Barnala State VsCourt Cases Launched In The Court Of Law Barnala State Vs
Court Cases Launched In The Court Of Law Barnala State Vs
 
Copy Of Ropar Detail Court Cases 1 8 Dates
Copy Of Ropar Detail Court Cases 1 8 DatesCopy Of Ropar Detail Court Cases 1 8 Dates
Copy Of Ropar Detail Court Cases 1 8 Dates
 
Copy Of Court Cases Launched In The Court Of Law
Copy Of Court Cases Launched In The Court Of LawCopy Of Court Cases Launched In The Court Of Law
Copy Of Court Cases Launched In The Court Of Law
 

Último

Role of Soap based and synthetic or syndets bar
Role of  Soap based and synthetic or syndets barRole of  Soap based and synthetic or syndets bar
Role of Soap based and synthetic or syndets barmohitRahangdale
 
Breast cancer -ONCO IN MEDICAL AND SURGICAL NURSING.pptx
Breast cancer -ONCO IN MEDICAL AND SURGICAL NURSING.pptxBreast cancer -ONCO IN MEDICAL AND SURGICAL NURSING.pptx
Breast cancer -ONCO IN MEDICAL AND SURGICAL NURSING.pptxNaveenkumar267201
 
Neurological history taking (2024) .
Neurological  history  taking  (2024)  .Neurological  history  taking  (2024)  .
Neurological history taking (2024) .Mohamed Rizk Khodair
 
Mental health Team. Dr Senthil Thirusangu
Mental health Team. Dr Senthil ThirusanguMental health Team. Dr Senthil Thirusangu
Mental health Team. Dr Senthil Thirusangu Medical University
 
AUTONOMIC NERVOUS SYSTEM organization and functions
AUTONOMIC NERVOUS SYSTEM organization and functionsAUTONOMIC NERVOUS SYSTEM organization and functions
AUTONOMIC NERVOUS SYSTEM organization and functionsMedicoseAcademics
 
historyofpsychiatryinindia. Senthil Thirusangu
historyofpsychiatryinindia. Senthil Thirusanguhistoryofpsychiatryinindia. Senthil Thirusangu
historyofpsychiatryinindia. Senthil Thirusangu Medical University
 
Male Infertility, Antioxidants and Beyond
Male Infertility, Antioxidants and BeyondMale Infertility, Antioxidants and Beyond
Male Infertility, Antioxidants and BeyondSujoy Dasgupta
 
CONNECTIVE TISSUE (ANATOMY AND PHYSIOLOGY).pdf
CONNECTIVE TISSUE (ANATOMY AND PHYSIOLOGY).pdfCONNECTIVE TISSUE (ANATOMY AND PHYSIOLOGY).pdf
CONNECTIVE TISSUE (ANATOMY AND PHYSIOLOGY).pdfDolisha Warbi
 
ANATOMICAL FAETURES OF BONES FOR NURSING STUDENTS .pptx
ANATOMICAL FAETURES OF BONES  FOR NURSING STUDENTS .pptxANATOMICAL FAETURES OF BONES  FOR NURSING STUDENTS .pptx
ANATOMICAL FAETURES OF BONES FOR NURSING STUDENTS .pptxWINCY THIRUMURUGAN
 
AORTIC DISSECTION and management of aortic dissection
AORTIC DISSECTION and management of aortic dissectionAORTIC DISSECTION and management of aortic dissection
AORTIC DISSECTION and management of aortic dissectiondrhanifmohdali
 
Using Data Visualization in Public Health Communications
Using Data Visualization in Public Health CommunicationsUsing Data Visualization in Public Health Communications
Using Data Visualization in Public Health Communicationskatiequigley33
 
Clinical Research Informatics Year-in-Review 2024
Clinical Research Informatics Year-in-Review 2024Clinical Research Informatics Year-in-Review 2024
Clinical Research Informatics Year-in-Review 2024Peter Embi
 
EXERCISE PERFORMANCE.pptx, Lung function
EXERCISE PERFORMANCE.pptx, Lung functionEXERCISE PERFORMANCE.pptx, Lung function
EXERCISE PERFORMANCE.pptx, Lung functionkrishnareddy157915
 
How to cure cirrhosis and chronic hepatitis naturally
How to cure cirrhosis and chronic hepatitis naturallyHow to cure cirrhosis and chronic hepatitis naturally
How to cure cirrhosis and chronic hepatitis naturallyZurück zum Ursprung
 
PAIN/CLASSIFICATION AND MANAGEMENT OF PAIN.pdf
PAIN/CLASSIFICATION AND MANAGEMENT OF PAIN.pdfPAIN/CLASSIFICATION AND MANAGEMENT OF PAIN.pdf
PAIN/CLASSIFICATION AND MANAGEMENT OF PAIN.pdfDolisha Warbi
 
Red Blood Cells_anemia & polycythemia.pdf
Red Blood Cells_anemia & polycythemia.pdfRed Blood Cells_anemia & polycythemia.pdf
Red Blood Cells_anemia & polycythemia.pdfMedicoseAcademics
 

Último (20)

Immune labs basics part 1 acute phase reactants ESR, CRP Ahmed Yehia Ismaeel,...
Immune labs basics part 1 acute phase reactants ESR, CRP Ahmed Yehia Ismaeel,...Immune labs basics part 1 acute phase reactants ESR, CRP Ahmed Yehia Ismaeel,...
Immune labs basics part 1 acute phase reactants ESR, CRP Ahmed Yehia Ismaeel,...
 
Role of Soap based and synthetic or syndets bar
Role of  Soap based and synthetic or syndets barRole of  Soap based and synthetic or syndets bar
Role of Soap based and synthetic or syndets bar
 
American College of physicians ACP high value care recommendations in rheumat...
American College of physicians ACP high value care recommendations in rheumat...American College of physicians ACP high value care recommendations in rheumat...
American College of physicians ACP high value care recommendations in rheumat...
 
Rheumatoid arthritis Part 1, case based approach with application of the late...
Rheumatoid arthritis Part 1, case based approach with application of the late...Rheumatoid arthritis Part 1, case based approach with application of the late...
Rheumatoid arthritis Part 1, case based approach with application of the late...
 
Biologic therapy ice breaking in rheumatology, Case based approach with appli...
Biologic therapy ice breaking in rheumatology, Case based approach with appli...Biologic therapy ice breaking in rheumatology, Case based approach with appli...
Biologic therapy ice breaking in rheumatology, Case based approach with appli...
 
Breast cancer -ONCO IN MEDICAL AND SURGICAL NURSING.pptx
Breast cancer -ONCO IN MEDICAL AND SURGICAL NURSING.pptxBreast cancer -ONCO IN MEDICAL AND SURGICAL NURSING.pptx
Breast cancer -ONCO IN MEDICAL AND SURGICAL NURSING.pptx
 
Neurological history taking (2024) .
Neurological  history  taking  (2024)  .Neurological  history  taking  (2024)  .
Neurological history taking (2024) .
 
Mental health Team. Dr Senthil Thirusangu
Mental health Team. Dr Senthil ThirusanguMental health Team. Dr Senthil Thirusangu
Mental health Team. Dr Senthil Thirusangu
 
AUTONOMIC NERVOUS SYSTEM organization and functions
AUTONOMIC NERVOUS SYSTEM organization and functionsAUTONOMIC NERVOUS SYSTEM organization and functions
AUTONOMIC NERVOUS SYSTEM organization and functions
 
historyofpsychiatryinindia. Senthil Thirusangu
historyofpsychiatryinindia. Senthil Thirusanguhistoryofpsychiatryinindia. Senthil Thirusangu
historyofpsychiatryinindia. Senthil Thirusangu
 
Male Infertility, Antioxidants and Beyond
Male Infertility, Antioxidants and BeyondMale Infertility, Antioxidants and Beyond
Male Infertility, Antioxidants and Beyond
 
CONNECTIVE TISSUE (ANATOMY AND PHYSIOLOGY).pdf
CONNECTIVE TISSUE (ANATOMY AND PHYSIOLOGY).pdfCONNECTIVE TISSUE (ANATOMY AND PHYSIOLOGY).pdf
CONNECTIVE TISSUE (ANATOMY AND PHYSIOLOGY).pdf
 
ANATOMICAL FAETURES OF BONES FOR NURSING STUDENTS .pptx
ANATOMICAL FAETURES OF BONES  FOR NURSING STUDENTS .pptxANATOMICAL FAETURES OF BONES  FOR NURSING STUDENTS .pptx
ANATOMICAL FAETURES OF BONES FOR NURSING STUDENTS .pptx
 
AORTIC DISSECTION and management of aortic dissection
AORTIC DISSECTION and management of aortic dissectionAORTIC DISSECTION and management of aortic dissection
AORTIC DISSECTION and management of aortic dissection
 
Using Data Visualization in Public Health Communications
Using Data Visualization in Public Health CommunicationsUsing Data Visualization in Public Health Communications
Using Data Visualization in Public Health Communications
 
Clinical Research Informatics Year-in-Review 2024
Clinical Research Informatics Year-in-Review 2024Clinical Research Informatics Year-in-Review 2024
Clinical Research Informatics Year-in-Review 2024
 
EXERCISE PERFORMANCE.pptx, Lung function
EXERCISE PERFORMANCE.pptx, Lung functionEXERCISE PERFORMANCE.pptx, Lung function
EXERCISE PERFORMANCE.pptx, Lung function
 
How to cure cirrhosis and chronic hepatitis naturally
How to cure cirrhosis and chronic hepatitis naturallyHow to cure cirrhosis and chronic hepatitis naturally
How to cure cirrhosis and chronic hepatitis naturally
 
PAIN/CLASSIFICATION AND MANAGEMENT OF PAIN.pdf
PAIN/CLASSIFICATION AND MANAGEMENT OF PAIN.pdfPAIN/CLASSIFICATION AND MANAGEMENT OF PAIN.pdf
PAIN/CLASSIFICATION AND MANAGEMENT OF PAIN.pdf
 
Red Blood Cells_anemia & polycythemia.pdf
Red Blood Cells_anemia & polycythemia.pdfRed Blood Cells_anemia & polycythemia.pdf
Red Blood Cells_anemia & polycythemia.pdf
 

Cyper Drugs And Pharmaceuticals Vs The State Represented By Drugs On 28 November, 2006

  • 1. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.CH.SURYA RAO Criminal Petition No.1825 OF 2006 28−11−2006 Cyper Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. rep., by Sh.Gourav Bharbgav, Managing Director, 63,Rama Road, New Delhi − 110 015. And Others The State represented by Drugs Inspector, Chittoor, Through Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri Prabhakar Peri Counsel for the Respondents: Public Prosecutor :ORDER: The petitioners who are A.1 to A.3 in the proceedings seek to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for brevity ’the Code’) to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.387 of 2003 on the file of the V Additional Munsif Magistrate, Chittoor. The State represented by Drugs Inspector filed a private complaint before the Court against the petitioners and four others for the offences punishable under Sections 18(a)(i) read with Sections 16 and 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act (for brevity ’the Act’) and under Section 18−B punishable with Section 28 of the said Act. It is alleged inter alia in the complaint that the Drugs Inspector who was in−charge of Tirupati inspected the premises of M/s.Sabari Medical Agencies on 19.01.2001. A.4 was present in the premises doing business. The complainant picked up CD Plex Capsules batch No.CDP−34 with manufacturing date March, 2000, expiry date August, 2001 manufactured by M/s.Cyper Drugs and Pharmaceuticals, New Delhi (A.1). Following the procedure envisaged under the Act and the Rules framed thereunder, the complainant took samples of the drug on the same day by issuing Form−18 dated 19.01.2001. He sent one sample thus taken to the Government Analyst who on analysis sent his report bearing No.917/DCL/2001 dated 23.04.2001 with his remarks. It was opined intere alia therein that the sample does not conform to the Assay for Thiamine Hcl as per the labelled claim (0.362 mg/capsule, claim = 1.0 mg/capsule). Thereupon the complainant on 01.05.2001 addressed a letter under Section 18−A of the Act to A.4 requesting him to furnish name, address and other particulars of the person from whom he had acquired the drug. He received a reply dated 02.05.2001 from A.4 informing him inter alia that the drug in question was purchased from M/s.Sri Vinayaka Medical Agencies, Proddatur (A.5), under Invoice No.994 dated 12.05.2000. Accordingly the complainant addressed another letter dated 01.05.2001 to M/s.Sri Vinayaka Medical Agencies, Proddatur, requesting to disclose from whom it had purchased the subject drug. Simultaneously the complainant sent a portion of the sample and analyst report. On 10.07.2001 the complainant received a reply from A.5 dated 28.06.2001 informing him inter alia that A.5 purchased the drug from M/s.Venkat Kishore Medical Distributors, Vijayawada (A.6), under Invoice Bill No.15/34 dated 27.03.2000. The complainant again on 17.07.2001 addressed a letter to A.6 which too having received the letter informed the complainant that it had purchased the drug in turn from M/s.Jai Shanti Medicos, New Delhi (A.7), Indian Kanoon − http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1811953/
  • 2. under Invoice Bill No.1674 dated 09.03.2001. On 30.08.2001 the complainant again addressed a letter to A.7 requesting to disclose from whom it had purchased the drug in question. On 10.01.2002 the complainant received a letter from A.7 that it had in turn purchased the subject drug from A.1 firm vide Invoice No.536 dated 07.03.2000. The complainant, therefore, addressed five letters dated 01.05.2001, 12.06.2001, 30.08.2001, 05.01.2002 and 22.05.2002 to A.1 but no reply was received so far from A.1 firm. After sending a detailed report to the Director, Drugs Control Administration, Hyderabad, and after having obtained the constitutional particulars of the A.1 firm, the complainant filed the complaint eventually before the Court. Cognizance was taken by the Court, as aforesaid, under Sections 18(a)(i), 16 and 27(d) of the Act as against A.1 to A.7. Pursuant to the summons issued the petitioners who appeared before the Court filed the instant petition, as aforesaid, seeking to quash the proceedings as against them. Sri Prabhakar Peri, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, represents that there have been infraction of mandatory provisions of the Act in this case which entail the quashing of the case against the petitioners. The learned counsel further represents that the expiry date of the drug in question was obviously in the month of August, 2001 and having received the report of the Analyst on 28.04.2001 the complainant lodged the complaint on 19.08.2003 and thereby deprived a valuable right to the petitioners in asking the Court to send the sample to Central Drugs Laboratory and thus the accused are prejudiced. It is his further contention that A.2 and A.3 being the Directors of A.1 company cannot be prosecuted without there being a whisper in the complaint inter alia that they were in−charge of the day to day affairs of A.1 company, in the absence of which the prosecution could not be maintained against them. The contention of the learned counsel thus seems to be two fold. It requires no factual analysis of the facts having due regard to the fact that the petitioners seek to quash the proceedings on the premise that it is nothing but abuse of the process of the Court. It is trite that in a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code this Court is expected to go by the averments made in the complaint, assuming them to be true without adding anything thereto or subtracting anything therefrom. For the purpose of considering a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code, the Court has to consider the averments made in the complaint and the documents, if any, annexed therewith. No extraneous material can be considered. Nor the parties can be permitted to lead evidence. This is the settled legal position. Along with the complaint a list of documents have been annexed, as enumerated in the complaint itself, as can be seen from a copy of the complaint filed in the instant case. A perusal of the averments made inter alia in the complaint and the documents annexed therewith prima facie shows that the complainant has lifted the samples of the drug in question having purchased the same duly in accordance with the provisions contained in the Act and the Rules framed thereunder from A.4 in the first instance, he then sent samples thus lifted for the purpose of analysis and eventually after analysis the Analyst opined that the drug in question does not conform to the standards as claimed on the label of the drug. Thus, it appears that there has been prima facie infraction of the provisions of the Act. The crucial question to be seen having due regard to the contentions raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is as to whether there has been inordinate delay in laying the complainant and as to whether the same has any prejudicial effect on the petitioners depriving them from availing the provisions under the Act by asking the Court to send the sample for fresh analysis by Central Drugs Laboratory. The provisions germane in the context are Sections 23 and 25 of the Act. Section 23 mandates that where an Inspector takes a sample of the drug for the purpose of test or analysis, he shall intimate the purpose in writing in the prescribed form to the person from whom he takes the sample and in the presence of such person, he shall divide the sample into four portions and effectively seal and suitably mark the same and permit such person Indian Kanoon − http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1811953/
  • 3. to add his own seal and mark on those portions. The Inspector shall restore one portion of a sample so divided to the person from whom he takes it and from remaining three portions, he shall forthwith send one sample to the Government Analyst for test or analysis; and he shall produce the second one before the Court before which proceedings, if any, may be instituted; and the third one he shall send to the person whose name, address and other particulars have been disclosed to him under Section 18−A of the Act. No infraction has been complained of in the compliance of the procedure as envisaged under Section 23 of the Act is concerned. The next provision germane in the context is Section 25 of the Act. Under sub−section (1) thereof the Analyst is obliged to submit his report and deliver the same to the Inspector in triplicate in the prescribed form. The Inspector who received the report in triplicate shall deliver one copy thereof to the person from whom the sample was lifted and another copy to the person, if any, whose name, address and other particulars have been disclosed under Section 18−A of the Act. The third one shall be retained with him to use for the purpose of prosecuting the offenders. The report given by the Analyst shall be evidence of the facts stated therein and the provision attaches conclusiveness to the report qua the person from whom the sample was taken or the person(s) whose name, address and other particulars have been disclosed under Section 18−A of the Act later. Sub−sections (3) and (4) of Section 25 are very much germane for the present purposes and they read as under: "25. Reports of Government Analysts: (3) Any document purporting to be a report signed by a Government Analyst under this Chapter shall be evidence of the facts stated therein, and such evidence shall be conclusive unless the person from whom the sample was taken or the person whose name, address and other particulars have been disclosed under Section 18−A has, within twenty−eight days of the receipt of a copy of the report, notified in writing the Inspector or the Court before which any proceedings in respect of the sample are pending that he intends to adduce evidence in controversion of the report. (4) Unless the sample has already been tested or analysed in the Central Drugs Laboratory, where a person has under sub−section (3) notified his intention of adducing evidence in controversion of a Government Analyst’s report, the Court may, of its own motion or in its discretion at the request either of the complainant or the accused cause the sample of the drug or cosmetic produced before the Magistrate under sub−section (4) of Section 23 to be sent for test or analysis to the said Laboratory, which shall make the test or analysis and report in writing signed by, or under the authority of, the Director of the Central Drugs Laboratory the result thereof, and such report shall be conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein." A perusal of the said provision shows that within 28 days of the receipt of a copy of the report the person from whom the sample was lifted should notify in writing the Inspector or the Court before which any proceedings in respect of the sample are pending expressing his intention to adduce evidence in controversion of the report. After such notification of his intention to lead evidence, the Court may of its own motion or in its discretion at the request either of the complainant or the accused, cause the sample of the drug produced before it under sub−section (4) of Section 23 to be sent for test or analysis to the Central Drugs Laboratory and the report given by the Director of the Central Drugs Laboratory shall be conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein. Thus, sub−sections (3) and (4) of Section 25 clearly envisage the procedure to be followed by the person from whom the samples are lifted or the other persons concerned in the event such person is in disagreement with the report given by the Government Analyst and intends to lead evidence in controversion of the said report. Having due regard to this legal position, as can be seen from Sections 23 and 25 of the Act, it is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that no such copy of the report has been given to the petitioners Indian Kanoon − http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1811953/
  • 4. and thereby the petitioners are denied of availing the valuable defence which caused much prejudice to them. At this juncture, one factual aspect needs a mention before adverting to the contention of the learned counsel. As can be seen from the complaint, the complainant−Drugs Inspector stated to have addressed five letters to A.1 company and no reply so far was given. Among the documents annexed to the complaint, a copy of the letter dated 01.05.2001 is the document that has been addressed by the complainant obviously to the A.1 company annexing duly therewith a photostat copy of Form−13 bearing No.917/DCL/2001 dated 23.04.2001, i.e. a copy of the Analyst’s report. The question, therefore, arises is, in view of the contention raised by the learned counsel, as to whether that letter has been received by the accused/petitioners or not. As discussed hereinabove, what is required to be seen is the allegation mentioned in the complaint. The contention of the learned counsel that no such letter has been received by A.1 to A.3 and no acknowledgement in token thereof has been at least shown or annexed to the complaint at this stage merits no consideration. It has been clearly mentioned in the complaint inter alia that such a letter has been addressed and even four more letters have been addressed to A.1 company. Till such time that this averment is shown to be false, for the purpose of prima facie case it shall have to be taken into consideration. That apart, whenever it is stated before the Court that a letter has been posted to the address which is known or not shown to have been incorrect, presumption follows that in the chain of correspondence it forms a link and in natural course it has been received. It is for the addressee to show before the Court that no such letter has been received. Of course, it is a negative proof having due regard to the presumption under law, as can be seen from illustration (f) of Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act. Indeed a copy of the letter, as discussed hereinabove, has been annexed to the complaint. Therefore, it is open still to the petitioners to show before the Court that the averment made inter alia in the complaint is not correct and no such letter in fact has been sent or has not been received by the accused. Such a proof can be shown before the criminal Court but not in a petition filed before this Court under Section 482 of the Code. For the purpose of the instant petition, suffice if an averment is made inter alia in the complaint mentioning specifically that a letter has been addressed to the accused and that constitutes a prima facie case. In view of this specific averment in the complaint and annexing a copy of the notice said to have been addressed by the complainant to the petitioners, prima facie it shall have to be considered that A.1 duly has also been informed by the complainant about the report of the Analyst while marking a copy of the report to him. Having due regard to the same, it is for A.1 to invoke the provisions of sub− section (3) and (4) of Section 25 of the Act. The provisions clearly envisage that either the Inspector or the Court shall be informed within 28 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the report expressing the express intention inter alia therein to adduce evidence in controversion of the report. It is not the case of the petitioners that any such notification in writing either has been given to the Inspector or before the Court. Of course, in the instant case, latter course is not open having due regard to the fact that the complaint in this case was filed on 19.08.2003. Even then it is no bar for notifying the Court about the intention of the petitioners. Filing of a complaint is not a sine qua non for notifying the Court about the intention of the accused to oppose the Analyst’s report and lead evidence in controversion of that report. Sub−section (3) of Section 25 of the Act clearly envisages that it shall be notified either to the Court or to the Inspector in writing. In the event of any such notification by the accused, then the Court on an application filed by either of the parties to the proceedings or suo motu can send the sample deposited with it by the Drugs Inspector to the Central Drugs Laboratory for the purpose of test or analysis. Without notifying the Inspector or the Court and without requesting the Court to send the sample to the Central Drugs Laboratory, it is not open to the petitioners to contend that a valuable right is lost and thereby they are prejudiced. It may be reiterated here that the petitioners need not wait till such time the Drugs Inspector chooses to file a complaint before the Court since it is not a sine qua non. On the factual matrix, the petitioners cannot legitimately complain any infraction of the provisions of sub−sections (3) and Indian Kanoon − http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1811953/
  • 5. (4) of Section 23 and Section 25 of the Act. That these provisions are mandatory in nature is beyond any doubt. The question, therefore, remains to be seen is whether any infraction thereof has been there or not. In this connection, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners seeks to rely upon a Judgment of this Court in VETCHA VENKATA RAJU v. STATE OF A.P.1. It is obvious that it is a case where a trial was conducted against the petitioner which ended in conviction and in the eventual appeal filed assailing the conviction it was confirmed and, therefore, the petitioner approached the High Court in revision. At that stage it was contended that since the report of the Analyst was not supplied to the petitioner, he was crippled and thereby there had been an infraction of the mandatory provisions of Section 25 of the Act. Sufficient evidence seems to have been produced before the Court in proof of non−supply of the report. The said decision obviously was not germane in the present context for the simple reason that no trial has yet been commenced against the accused and, therefore, the question of proof does not arise. The case is obviously at the threshold and, as discussed hereinabove, it shall be still shown by the petitioners before the Court that they have not received any intimation from the Drugs Inspector. Therefore, the said decision has no application to the present facts. Another Judgment sought to be relied upon by the learned counsel is in DRUGS INSPECTOR, C.D.S.C.O. (SOUTH) ZONE, MADRAS v. MODERN DRUGS2. The Madras High Court too has taken the same view. As discussed hereinabove, there can be no disagreement with the proposition of law that the provisions contained in Section 25 of the Act are mandatory in nature. The case before the Madras High Court was again a case where trial was conducted, necessary documents were filed, and witnesses were examined. From the evidence thus adduced both oral and documentary before the Court, it was not shown before the Court that any such report was given to the petitioner. Therefore, as in the case of Vetcha Venkata Raju’s case, this decision too has no application to the matrix of the instant case. The learned counsel further seeks to reply upon a Judgment of the Apex Court in STATE OF HARYANA v. UNIQUE FARMAID (P) LTD.3. That was a case arising out of the provisions of the Insecticides Act. It was contended before the Apex Court that by not following the mandatory provisions of Section 24 of the said Act the prosecution deprived the accused to have the samples tested by the Central Insecticides Laboratory and to adduce evidence against the report given by the Analyst in the first instance. Having due regard to the provisions of the said Act and the matrix of that case, the Apex Court was of the view that the accused had been deprived of valuable right statutorily available to him. Section 24 of the Insecticides Act is in pari materia with Section 25 of the present Act. That was a case where the respondents company was notified by supplying a copy of the report to it and in reply thereto, the company expressed its intention to adduce evidence in support of its contention and to get the sample analysed by the Central Insecticides Laboratory as per the provisions of Section 24 of the said Act at the cost of the company. The Inspector of Insecticides did not advert to this request of the company, instead filed a criminal complaint against the respondent company and five others. Under those circumstances, the Apex Court was of the view that a valuable right of the respondent company was lost and that too having due regard to the fact that the complaint was lodged long after that request, by which time the shelf life of the sample was lost. The facts in the instant case are a little bit different. The petitioners have not notified obviously to the Drugs Inspector about their intention to lead evidence qua the Analyst’s report. Although the complaint was filed long after the expiry of the drug in question, having failed to notify the Inspector as envisaged under sub−section (4) of Section 25 of the Act, it is now not open to the petitioners to contend that they lost a valuable right. Delay in filing the complaint, if any, is of no consequence having due regard to the above facts. The Apex Court in STATE OF HARYANA v. BRIJ LAL MITTAL AND OTHERS4 has taken a Indian Kanoon − http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1811953/
  • 6. different view. The offence involved therein was under the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act as in the instant case. The Apex Court while adverting to the provisions of Section 25(3) and (4) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act held thus: "The right to get the sample examined by the Central Drugs Laboratory through the court before which the prosecution is launched arises only after the person concerned notifies in writing the Inspector or the court concerned within twenty−eight days from the receipt of the copy of the report of the Government Analyst that he intends to adduce evidence in controversion of the report. In the instant case in spite of service of copies of the report of the Government Analyst, the manufacturers did not exercise their right and on the contrary, they asserted that their Quality Control Department examined and tested samples of the two drugs and found that they complied with the test of sterility. It must, therefore, be said that consequent upon their failure to notify the Inspector that they intended to adduce evidence in controversion of the report within 28 days, not only the right of the manufacturers to get the sample tested by the Central Drugs Laboratory through the court concerned stood extinguished but the report of the Government Analyst also became conclusive evidence under sub−section (3). The delay in filing the complaint till the expiry of the shelf− life of the drugs could not, therefore, have been made a ground by the High Court to quash the prosecution." The Apex Court in Unique Farmaid (P) Ltd.’s case although noted its earlier Judgment in Brij Lal Mittal’s case, however, it has neither distinguished nor dissented from the view expressed by it in Brij Lal Mittal’s case. Both the Judgments have been rendered by co−equal Benches. However, the Judgment in Brij Lal Mittal’s case having been rendered under the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, it applies in all force to the matrix of the instant case. Even otherwise, both the Judgments are distinguishable on facts. In Unique Farmaid (P) Ltd.’s case, the company expressed its intention to adduce evidence by notifying the Insecticides Inspector and wanted to get the sample analysed by the Central Insecticides Laboratory. However, the Insecticides Inspector failed to accede the request of the company unlike in the latter case where the company failed to notify the Drugs Inspector expressing its intention to adduce evidence against the report of the Analyst and to get the sample analysed by the Central Drugs Laboratory which is the crucial distinguishing factor. In that view of the matter, the Judgment in Unique Farmaid (P) Ltd.’s case has no application to the matrix of the instant case. Without expressing any intention about leading evidence qua the report of the Analyst, the petitioners cannot be heard to say that they have been prejudiced, that too when it is for the Analyst or the Expert, as the case may be, to say that a particular sample having regard to the passage of time or delay, is still fit or not fit for test or analysis. It is not for the Courts to just surmise or assume certain things in respect of the matters which are exclusively within the domain of the Experts. Merely because the expiry date of the drug in question as mentioned on the label of the drug was August, 2001 it cannot automatically be concluded that after expiry of that date, the sample could not be analysed and, therefore, the persons from whom the samples were lifted will be highly prejudiced. Without any action on their part, such a plea is not permissible, in my considered view. In fact, that has been the view expressed by the Apex Court too. For the above reasons, the first contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners merits no consideration. As regards the second contention, obviously it is contrary to the existing state of affairs. In the complaint it has been specifically averred that A.1 is the company, A.2 is the Managing Director and A.3 is the Approved Manufacturing Chemist thereof. Having due regard to these descriptions given in the complaint, it is not now open to the petitioners to contend that the petitioners 2 and 3 who are A.2 and A.3 are the Directors of the A.1 company and in the absence of any allegation in the complaint inter alia that they are in−charge of the day to Indian Kanoon − http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1811953/
  • 7. day affairs of the company, no prosecution can be maintained qua them. Section 34 of the Act deals with the offences by the companies. In the event the accused is a company or a firm or a group of persons, the provision enables the procedure to be followed by the prosecuting agency against the company or its Directors; or both. By fiction of law, the provision mandates that the company as well as its Directors are liable and vicarious liability is attached to the Directors though their actual involvement has not been there in the infraction of the provisions of the Act. Having due regard to the vicarious nature of the liability, the Act envisages certain precautions to be taken before hauling up the persons vicariously liable although they have not actually violated any provisions of the Act. Such a provision is not applicable in cases of the persons who are directly in the control of the company. The Managing Director of the company cannot escape with impunity from any liability on the premise that he is not in−charge of the day to day affairs of the company. He being the Managing Director will obviously be at the helm of the affairs of the company. Such a plea can validly be taken by the other Directors who are not in−charge of the affairs of the company. On that score alone, the contention of the learned counsel merits no consideration. Section 34 of the Act is in pari materia with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and Section 33 of the Insecticides Act. All these provisions are in pari materia. Adverting to Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and having regard to the divergence of opinion expressed by various High Courts in several Judgments, on a reference the Apex Court by a three Judge Bench authoritatively resolved the divergence in S.M.S. PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. v. NEETA BHALLA5. The Apex Court in its Judgment at the end summed up the legal position in para 18 and in para 19 answered the queries thus: "18. To sum up, there is almost unanimous judicial opinion that necessary averments ought to be contained in a complaint before a person can be subjected to criminal process. A liability under Section 141 of the Act is sought to be fastened vicariously on a person connected with a company, the principal accused being the company itself. It is a departure from the rule in criminal law against vicarious liability. A clear case should be spelled out in the complaint against the person sought to be made liable. Section 141 of the Act contains the requirements for making a person liable under the said provision. That the respondent falls within the parameters of Section 141 has to be spelled out. A complaint has to be examined by the Magistrate in the first instance on the basis of averments contained therein. If the Magistrate is satisfied that there are averments which bring the case within Section 141, he would issue the process. We have seen that merely being described as a director in a company is not sufficient to satisfy the requirement of Section 141. Even a non−director can be liable under Section 141 of the Act. The averments in the complaint would also serve the purpose that the person sought to be made liable would know what is the case which is alleged against him. This will enable him to meet the case at the trial. 19. In view of the above discussion, our answers to the questions posed in the reference are as under: (a) It is necessary to specifically aver in a complaint under Section 141 that at the time the offence was committed, the person accused was in charge of, and responsible for the conduct of business of the company. This averment is an essential requirement of Section 141 and has to be made in a complaint. Without this averment being made in a complaint, the requirements of Section 141 cannot be said to be satisfied. (b) The answer to the question posed in sub−para (b) has to be in the negative. Merely being a director of a company is not sufficient to make the person liable under Section 141 of the Act. A director in a company cannot be deemed to be in charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of its business. The requirement of Section 141 is that the person sought to be made liable should be in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company at Indian Kanoon − http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1811953/
  • 8. the relevant time. This has to be averred as a fact as there is no deemed liability of a director in such cases. (c) The answer to Question (c) has to be in the affirmative. The question notes that the managing director or joint managing director would be admittedly in charge of the company and responsible to the company for the conduct of its business. When that is so, holders of such positions in a company become liable under Section 141 of the Act. By virtue of the office they hold as managing director or joint managing director, these persons are in charge of and responsible for the conduct of business of the company. Therefore, they get covered under Section 141. So far as the signatory of a cheque which is dishonoured is concerned, he is clearly responsible for the incriminating act and will be covered under sub−section (2) of Section 141." Clause (a) of para 19 of the said Judgment of the Apex Court shows specifically that necessary averment shall be made in the complaint that at the time offence was committed, the person accused was in−charge of and responsible for the conduct of business of the company without which the requirement of Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act cannot be said to be satisfied. In clause (c) the Apex Court held that in respect of the Managing director or Joint Managing Director they would be admittedly in−charge of the company and responsible to the company for the conduct of its business and when that was so, holders of such positions in a company become liable under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. By virtue of the office they hold as Managing Director or Joint Managing Director, those persons would be in−charge of and responsible for the conduct of business of the company. Therefore, they get covered under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It may be mentioned here at the cost of repetition, that in the instant case, it has been specifically averred, as discussed hereinabove, that A.2 is the Managing Director and A.3 is the Approved Manufacturing Chemist. They have not been described as the Directors of A.1 company. A.2 being the Managing Director at the helm of affairs cannot now be heard to say that he is only a Director and in the absence of any specific averment in the complaint that he is in−charge of day to day affairs of the company, no prosecution can be maintained as against him. Simultaneously, A.3 being the Approved Manufacturing Chemist of A.1 company, having due regard to the nature of the accusation that the drug in question manufactured by the A.1 company appears to be not in conformity with the standards prescribed, he cannot legitimately contend that he is not in− charge of the aforesaid function. Obviously, both the contentions raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners thus, for the reasons hereinabove discussed, merit no consideration. In the result, the Criminal Petition fails and is dismissed. ?1 1993 (1) Crimes 739 (AP) 2 1982 CRI.L.J. 2285 3 (1999) 8 SCC 190 4 (1998) 5 SCC 343 5 2005 SCC (Cri) 1975 = (2005) 8 SCC 89 Indian Kanoon − http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1811953/