LALANKUMAR SINGH & ORS. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

LALANKUMAR SINGH & ORS. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

The complaint failed to make the specific averments required by Section 34 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act against the appellants (who were not managing or whole-time directors) and the record showed designated technical staff were approved under Rule 76/Form 28; additionally, there was no formal reasoned order of issuance of process by the Magistrate. Therefore the summons and related orders as to the appellants were quashed and the complaint dismissed as against them.

Parties
Appellants: Lalankumar Singh & Ors.; Respondent: State of Maharashtra
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
11 October 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / On Appeal From the High Court of Judicature at Bombay (criminal Writ Petition No.288 of 2015)
Outcome
Appeal allowed.
Legal Topics
Vicarious Liability of Company Directors Under Section 34 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, Issuance of Process/summons by Magistrate and Requirement to Record Reasons, Requirements for Pleading Specific Averments Against Directors, Regulatory Requirements Under Rule 76 and Form 28 of the Drugs & Cosmetics Rules, 1945
Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 Criminal Procedure Company Law Vicarious Liability of Company Directors Under Section 34 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act Issuance of Process/summons by Magistrate and Requirement to Record Reasons Requirements for Pleading Specific Averments Against Directors Regulatory Requirements Under Rule 76 and Form 28 of the Drugs & Cosmetics Rules, 1945

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lalankumar Singh & Ors.

Appellants

State of Maharashtra

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / On Appeal From the High Court of Judicature at Bombay (criminal Writ Petition No.288 of 2015)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether directors can be prosecuted under Section 34 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act merely by virtue of being directors without specific averments showing they were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the company's business
  2. 2 Whether the Magistrate's order issuing process is sustainable where there is no formal reasoned order reflecting application of mind
  3. 3 Whether the complaint satisfied the requirements of Section 34 read with Rule 76/Form 28

Ratio Decidendi

The complaint failed to make the specific averments required by Section 34 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act against the appellants (who were not managing or whole-time directors) and the record showed designated technical staff were approved under Rule 76/Form 28; additionally, there was no formal reasoned order of issuance of process by the Magistrate. Therefore the summons and related orders as to the appellants were quashed and the complaint dismissed as against them.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed.

Orders

  • Order of issuance of process dated 30 March 2009 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Beed is quashed and set aside
  • Order of the Sessions Judge, Beed dated 25 November 2014 dismissing Criminal Revision Petition No.115 of 2013 is quashed and set aside