By placing reliance on the case of Sanjay G. Revankar vs. State by Drug Inspector, U.K. District Kanwar, the Karnataka High Court observed that the complainant shall explicitly depict in the complaint the involvement of the accused persons in the alleged offences in order to make them vicariously liable. As on the basis of mere casual statements, proceedings cannot be initiated against the accused persons mentioned therein.
A single- Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasnna dismissed the criminal petition instituted against the petitioners questioning the pending proceedings before the Sessions Judge arising out of a complaint instituted under Section 27 (a) and 22 (3) of the Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940. The Bench was of the view that he complaint did not indicate the involvement of petitioners in conduct of the affairs of the company pertaining to manufacturing of drugs and thus they cannot be held vicariously liable in the instant case.
Petitioners preferred the present writ petition for calling in question the proceedings pending before the Sessions Judge at Bangalore emerging out of a complaint instituted under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. for violation of Sections 18 (a) (i) and 22 (i) (cca) punishable under Section 27 (a) and 22 (3) of the Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940.
Facts in brief for perusal of the present petition were that an information was received by the Assistant Drugs Controller from the Supreintendent of Minto Hospital, alleging that patients in the hospital who underwent cataract surgeries had developed eye infection. In pursuance of the same, the Assistant Drugs Controller visited the hospital for further investigation. Thereafter, the fact came to the surface that the drug that was used was not of standard quality, hence proceedings were initiated against the petitioners and several other accused for offences punishable under Section 27(a) of the Act for alleged violation of Section 18(a)(i) of the Act. Further a complaint was lodged by the respondents inoking Section 200 of the Cr.P.C.
The Court while analysing the complaint opined that the complaint did not indicate the involvement of petitioners in the day- to day affairs pertaining to manufacturing of drugs in the company. Thus, till the above proposition is not culled out explicitly in the complaint, the alleged offences against the petitioners cannot be driven home, is the consistent view taken by this Court in plethora of judgments right from the year 2000, the Court observed.
It referred a judgment of this Court in the case of Sanjay G. Revankar vs. State by Drug Inspector, U.K. District Kanwar, wherein it was held that prima facie requirement is that the complainant to substantiate the basic requirements like the presence of accused or to show he is in-charge of, or responsible for the conduct of the business of the Company, be it in any capacity and if he is the Director, Manger, Secretary or Officer of the Company it should be averred and shown that the offence took place with his consent or connivance or is also attributable to the neglect on the part of such person.
Another judgment of Dinesh B. Patel’s was preferred, wherein the Apex Court while considering the very same provision namely Section of 34(2) of the Act’, held that paragraph 6 of the complaint would disclose that directors therein had manufactured the medicine for sale in breach of the act and thus it was held that it is a punitive offence. It was also held that on examination of facts and namely the averments made in the complaint regarding the role and responsibilities of the petitioners not being specific precise, they cannot be proceeded against and complaint does not reveal that petitioners were in-charge and responsible for the conduct of the business.
Reverting back to the facts of the instant case, the Court submitted that the complaint in question was quite ambiguous concerning the participation of the petitioners in day-to-day manufacturing of drugs in the company. It was further observed that unless it is proven beyond reasonable doubt that the petitioners were involved in preparation and manufacture of drugs, alleged to be of sub-standard quality, the petitioners cannot face proceedings.
Thus, in light of the Judgments pronounced by the Coordinate Benches of this Court while interpreting Section 34 of the Act, it was observed that the impugned proceedings cannot be initiated against the petitioners. Casual statements in reference of them holding the position of Partners or Directors of the Company cannot solely compel the petitioners to suffer the proceedings.
Thus, in view of the aforesaid observations and findings, the Court observed that the test of vicarious liability was not satisfied in the instant case. Hence, the criminal petition was allowed and the proceedings pending before the Sessions Judge were set aside and quashed.
Case name: SHRI SUSHIL GOEL Vs. STATE AT THE INSTANCE OF DRUGS INSPECTOR- I
Picture Source :
