2010 (8) TMI 1167

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hat the directors are responsible for the affairs of the company and, therefore, when a drug manufactured by the company was found to be defective, all the directors could be prosecuted. The High Court, however, left it to the concerned parties to prove before the Trial Court that they were not in any way responsible for the manufacture process. The High Court proceeded on the basis of specific language of Section 34(2) of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 (for short "the Act") and proceeded to hold that the complaint filed against the directors could not be disposed of under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as it required appreciation of the facts on the basis of the evidence to be led before the Trial Court. 3. When the matter came up before this Cou....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sp;   Thus, I request to carry out legal proceedings against above accused M/s. Denis Chem Lab Ltd., Block No. 457, Chhatral, Ta. Kalol, District Gandhinagar and its directors. Earlier to that, in para 4 of the complaint, the complainant had referred to the written representation given by accused No. 1 - director of the firm and accused No. 2 Himansu C. Patel and Quality Assurance Manager - Mr. Mehul M. Rao during the inspection to the inspecting authorities. That representation is not before us. 6. We have gone through the decision of Brij Lal Mittal (supra). In Brij Lal Mittal case (supra), the offence complained of was under Section 27 of the Act. The High Court had quashed the proceedings therein on the ground that the p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....bsp;      It is thus seen that the vicarious liability of a person for being prosecuted for an offence committed under the Act by a company arises if at the material time he was in-charge of and was also responsible to the company for the conduct of its business. Simply because a person is a director of the company it does not necessarily mean that he fulfills both the above requirements so as to make him liable. Conversely, without being a director a person can be in-charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of its business. From the complaint in question we, however, find that except a bald statement that the respondents were directors of the manufacturers, there is no other allegation to indicate, ....