https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165276 Under Section 25 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, the right to seek examination by the Central Drugs Laboratory arises only if the person concerned gives timely notice of intention to controvert the Government Analyst's report; if no such notice is given within the prescribed period, that right lapses, and prosecution is not quashed merely because the complaint was filed after the drugs' shelf life expired. For vicarious liability under Section 34(1), a complaint must specifically allege that the accused director was in charge of and responsible for the company's business at the relevant time; a bare assertion of directorship is insufficient. On these principles, the prosecution against the directors was unsustainable. en-us Thu, 30 Apr 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 31 Dec 2025 18:19:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165276 Under Section 25 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, the right to seek examination by the Central Drugs Laboratory arises only if the person concerned gives timely notice of intention to controvert the Government Analyst's report; if no such notice is given within the prescribed period, that right lapses, and prosecution is not quashed merely because the complaint was filed after the drugs' shelf life expired. For vicarious liability under Section 34(1), a complaint must specifically allege that the accused director was in charge of and responsible for the company's business at the relevant time; a bare assertion of directorship is insufficient. On these principles, the prosecution against the directors was unsustainable. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 30 Apr 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165276