Aditya Narayan vs Union Of India
2023 Latest Caselaw 624 Del

                          $~5
                          *      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                                                       Date of decision: 22.02.2023

                          +      W.P.(CRL) 2615/2021 & CRL.M.A. 21081/2021
                                 ADITYA NARAYAN                              ..... Petitioner
                                               Through: Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Sr. Adv. with
                                               Mr. Akshat Hansaria, Mr. Sanjeevi Seshadri, Mr.
                                               Tanmay Arora, Adv.
                                               versus
                                 UNION OF INDIA                              ..... Respondent

Through: Ms. Amrita Prakash, CGSC with Mr. Vishal Ashwani Mehta, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH

: JASMEET SINGH, J (ORAL)

1. This is a petition filed seeking quashing of the criminal complaint No. 9215 of 2019 pending before the learned MM-01, North-West District, Rohini Courts, Delhi as well as quashing of the summoning order dated 22.07.2019 and consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

2. In the present case, a complaint was filed by the respondent i.e. Union of India through Drugs Inspector, Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO) against M/s Sanofi India Limited for violation of Sections 18(a)(i) read with Section 16 punishable under Section 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.

3. The paragraph 25 of the complaint reads as under:-

"25. That accused no.-1 is the manufacturer of the drug in question and accused no.-2 and accused no.-3 are the

Signature Not Verified

ARORA Signing Date:01.03.2023 10:21:02 Chairman and Managing Directors of the company and are person in-charge of, and were responsible persons to the company for the conduct of the business of the company at the time of manufactured of sampled drug."

4. In the present case, the petitioner is the Chairman-cum-independent Director of M/s Sanofi India Limited and is impleaded as accused No.2 in the complaint.

5. It is stated by Mr. Krishnan, learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was an independent Director of M/s Sanofi India Limited from 30.04.2016 and continues till date. He has drawn my attention to DIR-12 to show his date of appointment as 30.04.2016. The company master data corroborates the same. He is also the Chairman.

6. He has drawn my attention to the paragraph 4 of the said complaint which shows that the specimen in question bearing Sample No.- NZ/SMP/SHS/A/2016-17/04, Batch No.-Al50683, Date of manufacturing: Jun/2015, Date of Expiry- May/2018, manufactured by M/s Sanofi India Limited. Hence, it is stated that on the date when the drug was manufactured, the petitioner had nothing to do with the affairs of M/s Sanofi India Limited and petitioner cannot be vicariously liable.

7. He has also drawn my attention to the judgment of 'Lalankumar Singh & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra' [(2022) SCC OnLine SC 1383].

8. Ms. Prakash, learned central government standing counsel states that in the present case, a show cause notice was issued to M/s Sanofi India Limited asking for the officers of the company who were in-charge of the day-to-day affairs of M/s Sanofi India Limited. In response, M/s

Signature Not Verified

ARORA Signing Date:01.03.2023 10:21:02 Sanofi India Limited replied on 05.10.2016 giving the name of the petitioner as the Chairman of M/s Sanofi India Limited. She further states that on the date of show cause notice as well as reply, the petitioner was the Chairman of M/s Sanofi India Limited.

9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

10. Admittedly the drug sample was of the year June, 2015. The paragraph 25 of the complaint itself states that the accused No.2 i.e. the Chairman was in-charge for conduct of the business at the time of 'manufacture of sampled drug'.

11. Admittedly on the day the drug was manufactured, the petitioner was neither responsible to the company nor was responsible for conduct of the business of the company. Prior to the date of his appointment as an independent Director, he had nothing to do with M/s Sanofi India Limited.

12. The paragraph 14 of the judgment of 'Lalankumar Singh & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra' [(2022) SCC OnLine SC 1383] is squarely applicable where it observes as under:-

"14. It could thus be seen that this Court had held that simply because a person is a director of the company, it does not necessarily mean that he fulfils the twin requirements of Section 34(1) of the said Act so as to make him liable. It has been held that a person cannot be made liable unless, at the material time, he was in-charge of and was also responsible to the company for the conduct of its business."

13. The fact that he was the Chairman on the date when the show cause

Signature Not Verified

ARORA Signing Date:01.03.2023 10:21:02 notice was issued or when the reply to the show cause notice was given will not make him vicariously liable for a sample which was manufactured in June, 2015.

14. In this view of the matter, the petition falls within the parameters of 'State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal' [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335] and the complaint even if read as a whole will not make an offence against the petitioner.

15. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition is allowed and criminal complaint No. 9215 of 2019 pending before the learned MM-01, North- West District, Rohini Courts, Delhi is quashed and consequently the summoning order dated 22.07.2019 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed.

16. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

17. Dasti.

JASMEET SINGH, J FEBRUARY 22, 2023 / (MS)

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

Signature Not Verified

ARORA Signing Date:01.03.2023 10:21:02