RANCHI, India, Nov. 22 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on Oct. 22:

1. Heard the parties.

2. Though, notice has validly been served upon the opposite party no.2, yet no one turns up on behalf of the opposite party no.2 in spite of repeated calls.

3. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with the prayer to quash and set aside the entire criminal proceeding in connection with C/2 Case No.42 of 2014 including the order dated 15.03.2014 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Jamshedpur whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Jamshedpur has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 18 (c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 against the petitioners.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners stocked, sold and distributed the schedule-H drugs without obtaining a drug license, in violation of Section 18 (c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and Rule-6 of the rules thereunder. It is next submitted that there is no allegation that the complainant-Drug Inspector seized any drug nor he prepared any list of drugs which were found to be sold, stocked or distributed. It is next submitted that there is an inordinate delay of 17 months from the date of inspection, for filing the complaint.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Haryana vs. Brij Lal Mittal and others reported in (1998) 5 SCC 343, in paragraph-8 of which it has been held 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 and simply because a person is a director of a company, it does not necessarily mean that he fulfils both the above requirements so as to make him liable.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners next submit that there is absolutely no allegation against any of the petitioners that they were in charge of and responsible for the company, nor the company has been arrayed as an accused. It is next submitted that mere possession of the drugs will not attract the penal provision under Section 18(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. It is next submitted that the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Jamshedpur has committed a grave illegality by not conducting an enquiry as contemplated under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=%2FE3WiyNUWFIaR1oBGE62WosZ%2BW3kTcdn%2FtvTFHbLEOKbzqpifAcWuUqjPBAsrz9R&caseno=Cr.M.P./2480/2019&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010250512019&state_code=7&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.