https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305660 Vicarious criminal liability of company directors under Section 34 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act requires specific averments that each director was in charge of, and responsible for, the company's business at the relevant time; a bare statement that the accused were directors or handled day-to-day affairs is insufficient. The complaint also indicated that persons specifically approved under the licensing regime for supervision and testing were different individuals, weakening prosecution by designation alone. An order issuing process must independently show application of mind and sufficient grounds to proceed; a presumed order from the roznama is not enough. On these grounds, proceedings against the appellants were quashed while the complaint continued against the remaining accused. en-us Tue, 11 Oct 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 19 Dec 2022 09:14:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305660 Vicarious criminal liability of company directors under Section 34 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act requires specific averments that each director was in charge of, and responsible for, the company's business at the relevant time; a bare statement that the accused were directors or handled day-to-day affairs is insufficient. The complaint also indicated that persons specifically approved under the licensing regime for supervision and testing were different individuals, weakening prosecution by designation alone. An order issuing process must independently show application of mind and sufficient grounds to proceed; a presumed order from the roznama is not enough. On these grounds, proceedings against the appellants were quashed while the complaint continued against the remaining accused. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 11 Oct 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305660