Madras High Court
K.S.Muralikrishna vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 6 September, 2022
Crl.O.P.No.19581 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 06.09.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.No.19581 of 2022
and Crl.M.P.Nos.12863 & 12865 of 2022
K.S.Muralikrishna,
Former Director of M/s.Medplus Pharmacy,
M/s. Optival Health Solutions Pvt. Ltc.,
No.12, Ground Floor,
Anna Street, Chitlapakkam,
Chennai – 600 064. ...Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by the Drugs Inspector,
Chrompet Range i/c.,
Office of Assistant Director
of Drugs Control,
DMS Campus,
Teynampet, Chennai-600 006. ...Respondent
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.,
to call for the records in the case in C.C.No.494 of 2022 on the file of the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Chengalpattu and to quash the
proceedings as far as this petitioner concerned.
Page 1 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.19581 of 2022
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Mohammed Rafi
For Respondent : Mr.E.Raj Thilak
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the
proceedings in C.C.No.494 of 2022 on the file of the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate Court, Chengalpattu, thereby taken cognizance for
the contravention under Sections 18(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act,
1940 (herein after referred to as “the Act”) r/w. Rule 65(2), 65(3)(1),
65(4)(3)(i) and 65(9)(a) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 (herein
after referred to as “the Rule”) punishable under Section 27(d) of the Act.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted
that the the petitioner is arrayed as A2 and he was the Director of
M/s.Medplus Pharmacny, a unit of Optival Health Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
Company registered under the Companies Act and passed a resolution
and executed power of attorney in favour of the third accused to obtain
drug licences from the authorities concerned as required under the Act.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.19581 of 2022
Accordingly, he obtained licence to sell, stock to exhibit for sale or
distribute by retail drugs.
2.1. He further submitted that on 23.09.2019, the respondent
inspected the premises of M/s. Medplus Pharmacy, unit of Optival Health
Solutions Pvt. Ltd., situated at No.12, Ground Floor, Anna Street,
Chitlapakkam, Chennai and the said shop was holding valid drug license.
During the inspection it was noticed that the endorsed registered
pharmacist was not present but the sales of the drugs were effected
without the supervision of the registered pharmacist. Further, on
verification of the prescription registered, it was not maintained with
signature of pharmacist for certain period. It was contravention of
Section 18(c) of the Act r/w Rule 65(9)(a) of the Drugs and Cosmetics
Rules, 1945 (herein after referred to as “the Rule”).
2.2. Hence, a show cause memo dated 09.12.2019 was sent by
the respondent and the same was replied by the person in charge of
M/s.Medplus Pharmacy, by the reply dated 28.01.2020. Without
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.19581 of 2022
application of mind and without considering the explanation submitted
by the person in charge, the respondent mechanically lodged complaint
as against the petitioner under Section 18 (c ) of the Act, 1940 read with
Rules 65(2), 65(3)(1), 65(4)(3)(i) and 65(9)(a) of the Rule, punishable
under Section 27 (d) of the Act.
2.3. He further submitted that under Section 34(1) of the Act, the
persons in charge of at the time of offence was committed, are
responsible and the company shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence.
But the petitioner was the Director of the company and he had no
knowledge about the day to day affairs of the company, which is having
various branches in South India. Insofar as the petitioner is concerned, he
was the Director of the company and he never dealt with policy of the
other accused. Therefore, he is not responsible for the conduct of the day
of day affairs of the other accused. To support of his contention, the
learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court reported in 2011 (1) SCC 176 in the case of Pepsi Co Oncia
Holding Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Food Inspector.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.19581 of 2022
3. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing
for the respondent would submit that during the course of inspection, one
Vinoth Kumar, was not present who is the endorsed registered pharmacist
having registration No.48790 A2. Without his personal supervision, sales
were done, which is in contravention of Section 18(c) of the Act, read
with Rule 65(2) of the Rule. Further he submitted that on verification of
the prescription register, it was found that the sales of the drugs effected
from bill No.192004890023785 dated 18.09.2019 to bill
No.192004890023882 dated 18.09.2012 and from bill No.
192004890023938 dated 19.09.2019 to bill No.192004890024409 dated
22.09.2019 were not maintained properly in the prescription register,
which is in contravention of Section 18(c) of the Act r/w Rule 65(3) (l) of
the Rule.
3.1. He further submitted that on verification of the purchase,
sales records and physical stocks for certain drugs, it was found that the
firm has supplied those drugs without issuing cash/credit memos by way
of retail and the same was in contravention under Section 18(c) of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.19581 of 2022
Act, r/w Rule 65(4)(3)(i) of the Rule and the detail is given as follows :-
Name of Batch Purchased from Quantity Stock Quantity Quantity
the Drug number whom, invoice purchased in sold with sold
(Brand number and date hand bill without
Name) bill
Ativan AK4047 OTNTO1901591863 2X30's (60 Nil 10 tablets 50 tablets
1 mg dated 05.08.2019 tablets)
Optival Health
Solutions Pvt. Ltd.,
Chennai-122.
Ativan AK4047 OTNTO1901699744 2X30's (60 Nil 10 tablets 50 tablets
1 mg dated 05.08.2019 tablets)
Optival Health
Solutions Pvt. Ltd.,
Chennai-122.
Restyl 0.5 SB9023 OTNTO190189665 10X15's Nil 80 tablets 70 tablets
9 dated 28.08.2019 (150
Optival Health tablets)
Solutions Pvt. Ltd.,
Chennai-122.
3.2. He further submitted that on verification of prescription
register, it was ascertained that certain drugs were sold without the
prescription of a Registered Medical Practitioners as follows :-
Sl. Name of the Drug Batch number Bill No. with date Quantity
No. (in Brand Name)
1 Zytanix 2.5 mg 1901528 192004890023756 10 tablets
Lasix 40 mg 9NA0023 17.09.2019 15 tablets
Aldactone 25 mg 02A19007 15 tablets
2. Ganaton OD 150 mg PRB0011 192004890023754 10 capsules
Rablft 20 mg RB190102 17.09.2019 15 tablets
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.19581 of 2022
Sl. Name of the Drug Batch number Bill No. with date Quantity
No. (in Brand Name)
3. Voglinac 0.2mg KVB901A 192004890021936 10 tablets
Crestor 5 mg CLM001 04.09.2019 30 tablets
Nebula 2.5 mg BFU1441 10 tablets
Okacet N380611 10 tablets
4. Glycomet 850 mg 48012209 192004890023449 10 tablets
15.09.2019
5. Lipikind F E2IAS005 192004890022843 20 tablets
Metpure XL 25 mg E16ER19010 10.09.2019 20 tablets
Ecosprin 75 mg 23002172 14 tablets
Ibugesic plus F380312 03 tablets
Storvag 20 mg EMU1004 15 tablets
Restyl 0.5 SB90239 15 tablets
Therefore, the petitioner committed offence under the Act and prayed for
dismissal of this quash petition.
4. Heard, Mr.M.Mohammed Rafi, the learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr.E.Raj Thilak, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
appearing for the respondent.
5. On perusal of records revealed that the petitioner is arrayed
as A2. According to the complaint, the first accused is the company, and
the second and third accused are the Director & person in charge. Insofar
as the allegations as against the petitioner is concerned, being the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.19581 of 2022
director, he has been impleaded as accused. On inspection of the Drug
Inspector, it was found irregularities and issued show cause notice dated
09.12.2019. By the reply dated 28.01.2020, third accused submitted the
explanation and denied the allegations made in the show cause notice.
6. The point for consideration is that whether the complaint is
sustainable as against the petitioner?
7. It is seen from the entire complaint, the third accused was
authorised to make necessary applications to the authorities concerned to
obtain licence under the Act, and the first accused authorised and also
executed power of attorney in his favour. Therefore, the first accused is
the company and petitioner is the Director of the first accused company.
It is relevant to extract Section 34(1) of Act, as follows:
“...34. Offences by Companies – (1) Where an
offence under this Act has been committed by a
Company, every person who at the time of offence was
committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to the
company for the conduct of the business of the company,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.19581 of 2022
as well as the company shall be deemed to be guilty of
the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against
and punished accordingly.”
8. It is seen from the complaint, the petitioner being the
Director of the first accused, has no direct knowledge in respect of the
licence and sales by the third accused. He also never involved in day to
day affairs of the company, since the first accused company is having
various branches in South India. There is no specific allegations as
against the petitioner as that he was in charge of the company and also
responsible to the company for the conduct of its day to day business
affairs except vague and bald statement against him. Therefore, the entire
proceedings is vitiated as against the petitioner herein.
9. In this regard, the Judgment rendered by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners in
the case of Pepsi Co Oncia Holding Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Food Inspector
reported in 2011 (1) SCC 176, is extracted hereunder:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.19581 of 2022
“...50...It is now well established that in a
complaint against a company and its Directors, the
complainant has to indicate in the complaint itself as to
whether the Directors concerned were either in charge
off or responsible to the company for its day to day
management, or whether they were responsible to the
company for the conduct of its business. A merely bald
statement that a person was a Director of the company
against which certain allegations had been made is not
sufficient to make such a Director liable to in the absence
of any specific allegations regarding his role in the
management of the company”.
10. In the case on hand, the petitioner being the Director of the
company, has not involved in the day to day affairs of the company.
Further there is no averment in the complaint that the petitioner involved
in the business transaction. Therefore, he is not responsible for the
company for the conduct of its business. As such, the above judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India is squarely applicable to this case
and the present complaint cannot be sustained as against the petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.19581 of 2022
11. In view of the above discussions, this Criminal Original
Petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.494 of 2022 on the file
of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Chengalpattu, is hereby
quashed as against the petitioner alone. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed.
06.09.2022
Internet: Yes
Index : Yes/No
Speaking/Non speaking order
rts
To
1. The Chief Judicial Magistrate Court,
Chengalpattu
2. The Drugs Inspector,
Chrompet Range i/c.,
Office of Assistant Director
of Drugs Control,
DMS Campus,
Teynampet, Chennai-600 006.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court,
Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.19581 of 2022
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,
rts
Crl.O.P.No.19581 of 2022 and
Crl.M.P.No.12863 & 12865 of 2022
06.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
