TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the complaint against the company directors was liable to be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for want of specific averments showing their role in the manufacture and sale of the defective drug under Section 34(2) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.
Analysis: The complaint was read as a whole and not in isolation. The allegations were not confined to a bare assertion that the accused were directors; the complaint also referred to the manufacture of the medicine for sale by the company and its directors, and linked the directors with the manufacturing activity. The Court distinguished the earlier authority relied upon by the appellants on the ground that, in that case, the complaint contained only a bald assertion of directorship, whereas here the pleadings contained further averments connecting the directors with the offence. The Court also noted the seriousness of the allegation involving a defective drug affecting public health and declined to adopt a purely technical approach at the stage of quashing.
Conclusion: The complaint disclosed sufficient averments to proceed against the directors, and the prayer for quashing was rejected.
Ratio Decidendi: For prosecuting company directors under Section 34(2) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, the complaint must contain allegations linking them with the offending manufacture or business activity; where such link is pleaded and the allegations are not merely bald, quashing under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is not warranted.
TaxTMI 
