Himachal Pradesh High Court
Reserved On : 19.9.2025 vs State Of H.P on 18 December, 2025
Author: Virender Singh
Bench: Virender Singh
12025:HHC:44791
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL
PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Cr. MMO No. 768 of 2024
Reserved on : 19.9.2025
.
Decided on: 18.12.2025
Ankit Singla & others
... Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P.
of
...Respondent
_____________________________ ______________
Coram
rt
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge
Whether approved for reporting? yes ________________________________________________ For the Petitioners : Ms. Pritika Thakur, Advocate vice Mr. Anubhav Chopra, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Mr. Mohinder Zharaick, Additional Advocate General.
Virender Singh, Judge The petitioners have filed the present petition, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as 'the BNSS'), for quashing the order dated 10.6.2024, passed by the Court of learned ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2025 20:32:57 :::CIS 22025:HHC:44791 Special Judge, Drugs and Cosmetics Act, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court'), whereby the .
learned trial Court has framed the charges, against the petitioners.
2. In the present petition, the petitioners of have sought the following substantive reliefs amongst others:
rt "a. Pass an Order setting aside the entirety of the criminal proceedings emanating out of the Supplementary Complaint filed by the Drug Inspector before the Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nalagarh, wherein the Petitioners have been arraigned as accused persons for purported offences committed under Section 17 B, 36 AC, 18(c), 22(3), 18A, 18B, 27(c), 27(b)(ii), 22(3), 28 and 28 A of the D & C Act, 1940 and the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 in Case no. 157/2024; including the order on charge dated 10.06.2024, passed by the Ld. Special Judge, Drugs and Cosmetics Act, Nalagarh, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh whereby the Ld. Special Judge has passed identical orders framing charges against the Petitioners under Ss. 17-B, 36-AC, 18 (c), 27(b)(ii), 18A, 18B, 28, 28A, 22(3) and 27(D) of the D & C Act.::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2025 20:32:57 :::CIS
32025:HHC:44791 b. Pass an order quashing the Supplementary Prosecution Complaint filed by the Drug Inspector qua the Petitioners."
.
2. The said reliefs have been sought on the ground that the Drugs Inspector has filed a complaint, under Sections 17 B, 36AC, 18(c), 22(3), 18A, 18B, 27(c), 27(b)(ii), 22(3), 28 and 28 of A of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules (hereinafter referred rt to as 'the Rules'), upon which, cognizance has been taken by the learned trial Court, and charges were framed, vide order dated 10.6.2024.
3. It is the case of the petitioners that on 31.1.2020, a company, under the name and Style of 'M/s K.C. Overseas Pvt Ltd.', having its registered office at Khasra No. 169/2, Buranwala Chowk, Village Buranwala, Tehsil Baddi, District Solan, H.P., was incorporated under the Companies Act, 2013.::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2025 20:32:57 :::CIS
42025:HHC:44791
4. The said company was in the business of trading of raw material of pharmaceutical products under the authority of licenses, issued .
by the State Drugs Controller, Food and Drugs Control Administration, H.P., under the Rules.
The company has appointed Sh. Harish Kumar of as the competent person, according to the provisions of the Rules and as per the license, rt which was issued in Form 20B, in favour of the company, "sales shall be made under the personal supervision of the competent person"
and in the "name of competent person".
5. Petitioners No. 1 and 2 are mentioned as Directors of the said company, but are not involved in the day-to-day affairs of the said company, including the operations carried out from the Baddi Office and Godown of the said company. In this regard, they have relied upon the license, dated 23.12.2022, which was issued ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2025 20:32:57 :::CIS 52025:HHC:44791 in the name of company, in Form-20B and Form-
21B of the Rules.
6. It is the further case of the petitioners .
that in terms of resolution dated 4.8.2020, issued by the K.C. Overseas Pvt. Ltd., Harish Kumar, has been appointed as the person in charge and of responsible for conduct of business at office of KC Overseas Ltd. In this regard, the petitioners rt have relied upon the affidavit of Harish Kumar, executed on 28.11.2022, as competent person of M/s K.C. Overseas Pvt. Ltd.
7. Thereafter, in the month of May, 2023, certain raids were carried out by the Drugs Inspector, at various premises, including that of the said company on 10.5.2023 and 11.5.2023.
The said investigation was conducted on the purported allegation that the said company and M/s Allied Pharma Chem were selling misbranded drugs/raw materials to various persons and companies.
::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2025 20:32:57 :::CIS62025:HHC:44791
8. During investigation, Harish Kumar, Sanjay Singh and Rishabh Singh have been arrested. However, petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 joined .
the investigation on 11 occasions. The company submitted multiple replies to various notices sent by the Drugs Inspector, under Section 22(1)(cca) of of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act. However, the Drugs Inspector, approached the learned Judicial rt Magistrate First Class, Nalagarh, for initiating the coercive process against petitioner Nos. 1 and 2.
9. Thereafter, petitioners No. 1 and 2 approached this Court by way of Cr. MMO No. 142 of 2024, titled as 'Ankit Singla & Anr. Vs. State of H.P., and on 14.3.2024, this Court has directed petitioners No. 1 and 2 to appear before the Drugs Inspector, on 22.3.2024. Petitioners No. 1 and 2 appeared before the Drugs Inspector, as per the directions of the Court and submitted the representation, alongwith the relevant documents.
::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2025 20:32:57 :::CIS72025:HHC:44791
10. On 26.3.2024, this Court, in the light of the fact that a complaint, as well as, supplementary complaint stood filed and .
investigation is complete, has directed, petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 to surrender before the learned JMFC, Nalagarh. Relevant paragraph-6 of the of judgment is reproduced as under:
"In view of the fair stand, so taken by Mr. Ajay Kochhar Learned Senior Counsel, assisted by rt Mr. Vijay Arora and Anubhav Chopra, Advocates, and the undertaking given to this Court today (as in Para 5 supra]; therefore, without going into the merits or validity of the Impugned Order dated 17.2.2024 [Annexure P-
1], this Court closes the instant petition, by directing the petitioners namely Mr. Ankit Singla and Mr. Ankush Singla to surrender before the Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nalagarh (District Solan H.P.) on 30.03.2024 at 11:00 AM; with further directions to both the petitioners to furnish a personal bond of Rs 1,00,000/- [Rupees One Lakh Only], with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, alongwith an undertaking to appear in the trial Court and consequential proceedings, without fail."::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2025 20:32:57 :::CIS
82025:HHC:44791
11. It is the further case of the petitioners that the Drugs Inspector filed a complaint .
against Harish Kumar, Sanjay Singh and Rishabh Singh. The relief, as claimed in the petition, has been sought on the ground that as per statement of Mr. Manu Pillai, Assistant of Manager, Purchase at M/s Pinnacle Life Sciences, rtdated 4.8.2023, alongwith the documents, including the e-mail communication between M/s Pinnacle Life Sciences and the company, no case is made out against them. The said e-mail has been annexed with the petition as Annexure P-11. In addition to this, notices issued by the Drugs Inspector, alongwith the reply, have also been annexed with the petition, as Annexure P-12.
12. In nut-shell, it is the case of the petitioners that they have no concern whatsoever with the day-to-day functioning of the company ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2025 20:32:57 :::CIS 92025:HHC:44791 and when, the complaint has been filed against Harish Kumar, then, the prosecution, launched against them, is not sustainable in the eyes of .
the law.
13. According to the petitioners, the compliance of Section 208, read with Section 207 of Cr. P.C. has not been done by the learned trial Court and without complying with the same, the rt charges have been framed. The order, by virtue of which, the charges were ordered to be framed, is stated to be non-speaking, as no reasons have been assigned, since according to the petitioners, there is nothing in the complaint, upon which, the charges can be framed against them.
14. The relief has also been sought on the ground that petitioners No. 1 and 2 cannot be arrayed as accused in the complaint, as the offences have allegedly been committed by the company, in contravention of the provisions of Drugs & Cosmetics Act, and in the absence of ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2025 20:32:57 :::CIS 102025:HHC:44791 any averments in the original or supplementary complaint to the effect that petitioners No. 1 and 2 were Incharge or responsible for the day-to-day .
affairs of the company, no prosecution can be launched against them.
15. According to the petitioners, as per the of Drugs and Cosmetics, as well as, Rules framed therein, the competent person appointed under rt the 1945 Rules is Incharge, and he is responsible for the conduct of the affairs of the company.
16. To buttress their contention, the petitioners have relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalankumar Singh and Others v State of Maharashtra, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1383, State of Karnataka v. Pratap Chand and Others, (1981) 2 SCC 335, R. K. Khandelwal and another v. State, 1964 SCC OnLine All 48, Micro Bax (India) Ltd. and Others v. State of Telangana, rep. by Drug Inspector, ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2025 20:32:57 :::CIS 112025:HHC:44791 Ramachandrapuram, 2018 SCC Online Hyd 1938.
17. The petitioners have also pleaded that .
criminal vicarious liability cannot be fastened upon any staff, director or employee, for the offences committed by the company itself.
of
18. In this regard, the petitioners have also relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme rt Court in Sunil Bharti Mittal versus Central Bureau of Investigation, 2015 (1) SCALE 140.
19. The relief has also been sought on the ground that the mere fact that petitioners No. 1 and 2 were marked with the e-mail alongwith the competent person of the company is too short to attribute any knowledge of commission of purported offences against them. According to the petitioners, only a copy has been forwarded to them and this fact nowhere demonstrates the commission of the offence, under the Drugs & Cosmetics Act. This fact is also stated to be too ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2025 20:32:57 :::CIS 122025:HHC:44791 short to conclude that petitioners were incharge and responsible for the affairs of the said company.
.
20. The petitioners have also pleaded that the allegations against them qua the fact that certain packaging material and empty boxes were found of in the premises of the said company, are completely vague and do not prima-facie rt demonstrate the commission of an offence, under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.
21. No motive is stated to have been alleged against the petitioners for committing the alleged offence. According to the petitioners, the provisions of Section 36 AC of the Act is inapplicable to the case of the petitioners considering that the petitioners are not the manufacturer of the raw material, seized during investigation.
22. On the basis of above facts, a prayer has been made to allow the petition.
::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2025 20:32:57 :::CIS132025:HHC:44791
23. When, put to notice, the Drugs Inspector has filed reply stating that on 9.5.2023, a team of Drugs Inspectors inspected the premises of firm .
M/s Logos Pharma situated at Village Maissa Tibba, Tehsil Nalagarh. During inspection, suspected spurious drugs were also freezed on of Form 15 in the presence of representatives of M/s Logos Pharma and associated witnesses rt after taking 15 samples on Form 17 and 17A for test and analysis. It was verified that the suspected stock of drugs was also supplied by the petitioners firm. The drawn samples were sent to Regional Drugs Testing Laboratory, Chandigarh on Form 18 for test and analysis.
M/s JRS Pharma, being the original manufacturer of EXPLOTAB, VIVASOL & FLOCEL was requested through e-mail to join the investigation to verify the genuineness of drugs.
24. On dated 10.05.2023, a team of Drugs Inspectors inspected the premises of one another ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2025 20:32:57 :::CIS 142025:HHC:44791 firm M/s Ultra Drugs Private Limited. Unit-II.
situated at Katha, Baddi Distt. Solan, HP and the suspected stock of aforesaid spurious drugs were .
also found over there. So, three samples were drawn on Forms 17 & 17A for the test and analysis and the remaining stock of suspected of spurious drugs was freezed on Form 15. During inspection, it was verified that the suspected rt stock of spurious drugs was also supplied by petitioners firm to M/s Ultra Drugs. The drawn samples were sent to Regional Drugs Testing Laboratory, Chandigarh for test and analysis on Form 18.
25. On the same day, a team of Drugs Inspectors along with Police from PS Barotiwala, visited the premises of petitioners firm i.e. M/s KC Overseas Pvt. Ltd. situated at Khasra No. 169/2, Buranwala Chowk, Village Buranwala, P.O. Barotiwala, Distt. Solan.
::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2025 20:32:57 :::CIS152025:HHC:44791
26. During the visit, one Harish Kumar alongwith two other employees, was found present in the said premises, who had produced .
the wholesale drugs licenses issued to the petitioners firm by Drugs Licensing Authority and it was verified from licenses and affidavit of that Harish Kumar was endorsed as a competent person, on the wholesale drugs licenses, of the rt firm, as required under the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.
27. It is the case of the respondent that during the visit, petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 being Directors of the Petitioner No. 3 firm, were contacted through the mobile phone of Harish Kumar, however, no reply was received from them and they remained absconded.
28. It is the further case of the respondents that on 11.05.2023, Mr. Jaya Prakash M, who was an authorized signatory of M/s JRS Pharma alongwith one other ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2025 20:32:57 :::CIS 162025:HHC:44791 representative Mr. Anil Patel visited the premises of the petitioners firm, M/s KC Overseas Pvt.
Ltd., and during their visit, identified the drugs .
laying in the premises of the said firm being genuine, as were supplied by M/s JRS Pharma to it. The representatives of M/s JRS Pharma along of with Harish Kumar (competent person) and two other employees of the petitioners firm were rt requested to join the investigation at M/s Pinnacle Life Sciences to identify the genuineness of drugs and to segregate the genuine drugs from suspected spurious drugs.
29. As per the further case of the respondent, on 11.05.2023, a team of Drugs Inspectors along with representatives of M/s JRS Pharma, representatives of M/s KC Overseas Pvt. Ltd.
along with witnesses visited the premises of M/s Pinnacle Life Sciences situated at Manpura, Baddi, Distt. Solan, HP and during the visit, Mr. Jaya Prakash M from M/S JRS Pharma had ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2025 20:32:57 :::CIS 172025:HHC:44791 verified that some of the material supplied by the petitioners firm labelled as "manufactured by M/s JRS Pharma" was not actually the original .
product of M/s JRS Pharma which was labeled as "manufactured by M/s JRS Pharma", and was neither manufactured nor supplied by M/s JRS of Pharma to the petitioners firm. Moreover, the petitioners firm, M/s KC Overseas, had supplied rt these spurious drugs to M/s Pinnacle Life Sciences through sales invoices.
30. It is also the case of the respondent that Harish Kumar was the competent person of the firm and was responsible for the sale and purchase of the drugs by the firm, which had supplied the huge quantity of spurious drugs to M/s Pinnacle Life Sciences, in contravention of Sections 18(a)(i), 17B read with Section 36 AC of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. Harish Kumar was arrested on the spot, as he was not able to produce the complete record of spurious drugs, ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2025 20:32:57 :::CIS 182025:HHC:44791 supplied by the petitioners firm to Pinnacle Life Sciences. On 11.5.2023, Harish Kumar was produced before the learned JMFC, Nalagarh and .
was remanded to custody of the Drugs Inspector for three days.
31. According to the respondent, on of 12.05.2023, Harish Kumar was brought to the premises of M/s Ultra Drugs Private Limited rt situated at Katha, where the representatives of firm M/s JRS Pharma and witnesses were also present in the said firm. The representatives of M/s JRS Pharma verified the stock of spurious Vivasol, which was not manufactured and supplied by them, but, was found labelled as manufactured by "M/s JRS Pharma and Gujarat Microwax P Ltd, Unit II Nandasan, Distt.
Mehsana, Gujarat. During investigation, Harish Kumar disclosed that the said spurious drugs were supplied by the petitioners firm to M/s Ultra Drugs Private Limited at Katha. Therefore, ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2025 20:32:57 :::CIS 192025:HHC:44791 complete stock of spurious drugs was seized by the then Drugs Inspector, in the presence of representatives from M/s JRS Pharma, accused .
Harish Kumar, representatives from M/s Ultra Drugs & associated witnesses.
32. On 16.05.2023, a team of Drugs of Inspectors visited the premises of M/s Logos Pharma, wherein, the spurious drugs were rt identified based on the reference packaging material provided by M/s JRS Pharma and the stock of spurious drugs was seized by the respondent, in the presence of representatives from M/s Logos Pharma and associated witnesses.
33. It is the further case of the Drugs Inspector that that M/s Allied Pharma & M/s KC Overseas Pvt.Ltd. had manufactured the spurious drugs in connivance with each other and further, supplied the said spurious drugs to various manufacturing units at Baddi Barotiwala ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2025 20:32:57 :::CIS 202025:HHC:44791 and Nalagarh (BBN) area, and the Proprietor of M/s Allied Pharma, Sanjay Singh was arrested by the Drugs Inspector and presented before the .
Court of Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nalagarh.
34. According to the respondent, on of 26.05.2023, the statement of Pradeep Singh, who was working as Data Entry Operator at M/s rt Allied Pharma Chem, was recorded, who had disclosed that M/s Allied Pharma Chem used to manufacture spurious Explotab and Vivasol for petitioners firm, as per their request. It was also disclosed by said Pradeep Singh that some times, owner of the firm M/s K.C. Overseas Pvt. Ltd.
used to ask for manipulated sale invoices through e-mail and materials were used to be converted by the petitioners by themselves.
Accordingly, intimation of these manipulated sale invoices was given to petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2025 20:32:57 :::CIS 212025:HHC:44791 through e- mail by M/s Allied Pharma chem., as per their request.
35. On 31.05.2023, a team of Drugs .
Inspectors of BBN area, along with the witnesses, visited the premises of M/s Park Pharmaceuticals situated at Village Kalu Jhanda, of Tehsil Baddi, Distt. Solan, HP and based on the reference material, submitted by M/s JRS rt Pharma and email communication, the entire stock of spurious drugs was seized by the Drugs Inspector, after drawing the samples, for test and analysis.
36. It is the further case of the respondent that in response to the notice dated 18.5.2023, petitioners-firm submitted its reply on 23.05.2023 & 30.05.2023, in which, it has been admitted that they had purchased the spurious Explotab with Batch Numbers 61123030021, 61123030020, 61123030005 and 61123030031 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2025 20:32:57 :::CIS 222025:HHC:44791 from M/s Allied Pharma Chem and supplied the said drugs to M/s Pinnacle Life Sciences.
37. As per the further case of the respondent, .
on 02.06.2023, the premises of M/s Allied Pharma Chem was again visited for the verification of physical stock present in the of premises.
38. On 26.05.2023 & 02.06.2023 Pradeep Singh rt (Data Entry Operator in M/s Allied Pharma) disclosed that competent person and the Directors of M/s KC Overseas Pvt.Ltd.
namely Harish Kumar, Ankush Singla (Petitioner No. 1) and Ankit Singla (Petitioner No. 2) used to provide the Sodium Starch Glycolate of M/s Blue Craft make to M/s Allied Pharma Chem alongwith packing material, and imitative labels of M/s JRS Pharma, which were pasted on the corrugated boxes of spurious drugs, recovered from various drugs manufacturing firms, situated at BBN area of Distt. Solan, HP and M/s ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2025 20:32:57 :::CIS 232025:HHC:44791 KC Overseas received back the same material with M/s JRS make. It was also disclosed by Mr. Pradeep Singh that sometimes M/s KC Overseas .
Pvt.Ltd. only asked for changed invoices through email and the material was exchanged by M/s KC Overseas themselves. Intimation of forged of bills by M/s Allied Pharma Chem was given through emails to Ankush Singla, Ankit Singla rt (Petitioners No. 1 & 2) and and Harish Kumar, as per their request.
39. It is the further case of the Drugs Inspector that on 10.6.2023, a letter was sent by the Drugs Inspector concerned to M/s JRS Pharma to disclose about the copy of an agreement between M/s JRS Pharma and M/s Allied Pharma Chem, and to produce complete sales of Explotab and Vivasol to M/s Allied Pharma Chem, alongwith photos of spurious drug M1, M2, M3. In response, vide letter dated 10.06.2023, it was disclosed by M/s JRS Pharma ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2025 20:32:57 :::CIS 242025:HHC:44791 through e-mail that neither the firm had ever signed any agreement with M/s Allied Pharma Chem, nor had supplied Explotab & Vivasol to .
M/s Allied Pharma Chem, at any point of time. It was further disclosed that only some of the material actually supplied by M/s JRS Pharma of and remaining was spurious.
40. The prayer, so made in the petition, has rt also been contested on the ground that on 16.06.2023, samples test and analysis reports were received, for fourteen samples by the Govt.
Analyst, which were declared as of standard quality and confirmed the presence- of Sodium Starch Glycolate, Cross Carmellose Sodium and Micro Crystalline Cellulose in the samples. On 17.06.2023, both the accused persons Ankit Singla and Ankush Singla (i.e. the Petitioners No. 1 & 2), joined the investigation.
41. When, the record was scrutinized, it was found that the petitioners firm, M/s KC ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2025 20:32:57 :::CIS 252025:HHC:44791 Overseas, had purchased spurious drugs Explotab and Vivasol quantity 28.975 Kg from M/s Allied Pharma Chem. Accordingly, on .
19.06.2023, the premises of the petitioners firm was visited by the inspecting team, in the presence of Ankit Singla and Ankush Singla, of (Petitioner No. 1 and 2) alongwith two associated persons, wherein, the packaging material used rt for the packaging of spurious drugs Explotab and Vivasol was recovered and seized.
42. On 20.06.2023, the petitioners joined the investigation, when, one more notice under section 22(1)(cca) was served to produce the complete purchase record of the packaging material seized, on Form 16 at M/s KC Overseas and were also directed to produce complete sales/distribution record of spurious Explotab and Vivasol of quantity 28,975 Kg. On 21.06.2023, a notice under section 22(1)(cca) was served to M/s Allied Pharma Chem and an email ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2025 20:32:57 :::CIS 262025:HHC:44791 was sent to M/s JRS Pharma Gujarat, for further verification of purchase bills of CCS and Explotab of JRS make, as disclosed by .
petitioners, Ankit Singla and Ankush Singla, during investigation. On the same day, the firm M/s JRS Pharma replied and mentioned that, of "We hereby confirm that we have never supplied any SSG (Explotab) and CCS (Vivasol) to M/s rt Allied Pharma Chem at any point of time".
43. On 26.06.2023 and 27-6-2023, petitioners No. 1 & 2, Ankit Singla and Ankush Singla joined the investigation, and submitted the partial response/reply to the notice, by disclosing the complete sales of spurious Explotab and Vivasol, through sales invoices to M/s Pinnacle Life Sciences, M/s Ultra Drugs Private Limited situated at Katha, M/s Ultra Drugs Private Limited situated at Manpura, M/s Logos Pharma, M/s Life Vision and M/s Laborate Pharma total 28700 Kg, but, neither they ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2025 20:32:57 :::CIS 272025:HHC:44791 submitted the sales record of remaining 275 Kg of spurious drugs, nor, did they disclose purchase bills of packaging material.
.
44. On 28.06.2023, notices were served upon M/s Pinnacle Life Sciences, M/s Logos Pharma, M/s Ultra Drugs, M/s Park Pharma. M/s Life of Vision & M/s Laborate Pharmaceuticals to disclose the supply of spurious drugs by M/s KC rt Overseas and the statement about present stock in hand, if any. On the same day, both, petitioners No. 1 & 2, Ankit Singla and Ankush Singla, submitted the debit notes for 275 Kg of Explotab. The debit notes submitted to reconcile the quantity of spurious drugs were found manipulated, as the debit notes did not mention the vehicle used for the transportation and two debit notes of the same product and batch number were made in the same read dates to avoid the transaction and trail of e-way bills.
Even, during the verification of stock of ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2025 20:32:57 :::CIS 282025:HHC:44791 materials, purchase and sales invoices of M/s Allied Pharma Chem, no material was found supplied by M/s KC Overseas to M/s Allied .
Pharma through debit notes.
45. On 30.06.2023, the firm M/s Ultra Drugs Private Limited submitted a reply to the notice, of disclosing that the firm was having stock in hand of spurious Vivasol. The firm was visited on 30-6- rt 2023 by the Drugs Inspector concerned in the presence of accused person, Ankush Singla (Petitioner No. 2), two independent witnesses and the representatives of M/s Ultra Drugs Private Limited. During the visit, spurious Vivasol was found in the raw material store, which was further identified as spurious drug by Ankush Singla (Petitioner No. 2) himself, as the same was supplied by M/s KC Overseas to M/s Ultra Drugs Private Limited. During the inspection, sample was drawn for analysis and the remaining ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2025 20:32:57 :::CIS 292025:HHC:44791 quantity of spurious drugs was seized by the respondent Drugs Inspector.
46. As per the further case of the respondent, .
during further investigation of the emails recovered at M/s Allied Pharma Chem, it was found that the emails regarding sales of spurious of drugs by M/s Allied Pharma were sent from email id: [email protected] to rt M/s KC Overseas at email IDs of the petitioner, i.e. Dispatch [email protected], Ankush Singla [email protected] & Ankit Singla [email protected]. As the e-mail IDs [email protected]&dispatch@kco verseas.in clearly indicated that the petitioners were indulged in the manufacturing of spurious drugs.
47. It is the further stand of the Drugs Inspector that on 12.07.2023, a notice under section 22(1)(cca) was served to M/S Allied Pharma to verify as to whether any drugs ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2025 20:32:57 :::CIS 302025:HHC:44791 material received by it, from M/s KC Overseas through debit notes, as during investigation, the petitioners Nos. 1 & 2, Ankit Singla and Ankush .
Singla, produced the debit notes of 275 Kg of spurious drugs. On 15.07.2023, M/s Allied Pharma submitted its response and declared that of they had never received any material, through debit notes, from M/s KC Overseas. On rt 24.07.2023, a letter was also written to the Assistant Commissioner, Central GST Baddi Distt Solan, HP to verify the genuineness of the debit notes, produced by Ankit Singla and Ankush Singla. Further, in its response, vide letter dated 25.7.2023, they declared that, "the mentioned debit notes under consideration are not declared in GSTR-1 returns filed for the month of April, May, June, 2023. Therefore, the debit notes do not appear to be genuine".
48. Similarly, on 28.07.2023, M/s JRS Pharma was requested to further join the ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2025 20:32:57 :::CIS 312025:HHC:44791 investigation and on 01.08.2023. the representative of M/s JRS Pharma, Mr. Jaya Prakash M (authorized signatory) joined the .
investigation and produced the certified copies of emails /communication done between M/s JRS Pharma and M/s KC Overseas from Sept. 2022 of to 6th May 2023 along with other requisite Documents. Statement of Java Prakash M. was rt recorded, wherein, he had disclosed that the emails were received from Mr. Aditya Garg from email id [email protected]. On the basis of above facts, it has been concluded by the Drugs Inspector that all purchases from M/s JRS Pharma, was well in knowledge of Ankit Singla.
Further, as per the sales record produced by Mr. Jaya Prakash M, it was observed that the batch number of genuine Explotab and Vivasol was copied in the spurious Explotab and Vivasol.
49. During investigation, it was also informed by the representative of JRS Pharma that the K.C ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2025 20:32:57 :::CIS 322025:HHC:44791 Overseas Pvt. Ltd. was the exclusive distributor for the drugs product FLOCEL, EXLOTAB and VIVASOL in the north India. Hence, the said firm .
could not purchase aforesaid drug from any other except JRS wholesaler/distributor Pharma (Drug manufacturer).
of
50. On 4.8.2023, Mr. Manu Pillai Assistant Manager (Purchase) of M/s Pinnacle Life sciences rt Pvt Ltd. had also furnished the documents, as required, and stated that all communications with M/S K.C overseas was well in knowledge of Mr. Ankit Singla and Mr. Ankush Singla, Petitioners No. 1 & 2, as all the e-mails regarding to sale of the firm were copied to Mr. Ankit Singla and Ankush Singla. On 19.11.2022, an email was sent from Managing Director of JRS to [email protected] and it was disclosed in the email that pricing issue has been discussed with Mr. Ankush Singla, (petitioner No. 2) which ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2025 20:32:57 :::CIS 332025:HHC:44791 clearly indicated that the Director of the firm was indulged in the day to day activity of the firm.
51. On 18.08.2023, one subsequent letter was .
received form Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods & Services Tax Division. Baddi and in contrary to the previous letter, declared the debit of notes as genuine, in continuation whereto, a letter dated 19.08.2023 was again written to Assistant rt Commissioner, Central Goods & Services Tax Division Baddi, by the Drugs Inspector concerned, with a request to again look into the matter. But, it has been found that debit note, issued by M/s K.C Overseas, appears genuine, as these debit notes have duly been recorded, in their books of accounts, though, not shown in GST returns.
52. On merits, the petition has also been contested on the ground that both the petitioners, being Directors, were found involved in manufacturing of spurious drugs.
::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2025 20:32:57 :::CIS342025:HHC:44791
53. On the basis of above facts, a prayer has been made to dismiss the petition.
54. The petitioners are before this Court .
under Section 528 of the BNSS (482 Cr. P.C.).
The scope and powers of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS (482 Cr. P.C.). has of elaborately been discussed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the lead case titled as State of rt Haryana Vs. Chaudhary Bhajan Lal & Others, 1992 CrLJ, 527, in which, the Hon'ble Apex Court has formulated the guidelines for exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Relevant paragraph 107 of the judgment is reproduced as under:-
"107. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2025 20:32:57 :::CIS 352025:HHC:44791 down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
.
1. Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
2. Where the allegations in the First Information of Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156 (1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate with the rt purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
3. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
4. Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only. a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
5. Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2025 20:32:57 :::CIS 362025:HHC:44791 continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly .
attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."
55. This view has again been reiterated by a of three Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Versus State of rt Maharashtra & Others, 2021 SCC Online SC 315.
Relevant paragraph 38 of the judgment is reproduced as under:-
38. In the case of Golconda Lingaswamy (supra), after considering the decisions of this Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur (supra) and Bhajan Lal (supra) and other decisions on the exercise of inherent powers by the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., in paragraphs 5, 7 and 8, it is observed and held as under:
"5. Exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code in a case of this nature is the exception and not the rule. The section does not confer any new powers on the High Court. It only saves the inherent power which the Court possessed before the enactment of the Code. It envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely: (i) to give effect to an order ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2025 20:32:57 :::CIS 372025:HHC:44791 under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. It is neither possible nor desirable to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of inherent .
jurisdiction. No legislative enactment dealing with procedure can provide for all cases that may possibly arise. Courts, therefore, have inherent powers apart from express provisions of law which are necessary for proper discharge of functions and duties imposed upon them by law. That is the of doctrine which finds expression in the section which merely recognises and preserves inherent powers of the High Courts. All courts, whether civil or criminal, possess in the absence of any rt express provision, as inherent in their constitution, all such powers as are necessary to do the right and to undo a wrong in course of administration of justice on the principle quando lex aliquid alique concedit, conceditur et id sine quo res ipsa esse non potest (when the law gives a person anything, it gives him that without which it cannot exist). While exercising powers under the section, the Court does not function as a court of appeal or revision. Inherent jurisdiction under the section though wide has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself. It is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone courts exist. Authority of the court exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the court has power to prevent such abuse. It would be an abuse of the process of ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2025 20:32:57 :::CIS 382025:HHC:44791 the court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation or continuance of it amounts to abuse of .
the process of court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by the complaint, the court may examine the question of fact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the complainant has of alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto.
7. In dealing with the last category, it is rt important to bear in mind the distinction between a case where there is no legal evidence or where there is evidence which is clearly inconsistent with the accusations made, and a case where there is legal evidence which, on appreciation, may or may not support the accusations. When exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it accusation would not be sustained. That is the function of the trial Judge. Judicial process, no doubt should not be an instrument of oppression, or, needless harassment. Court should be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all relevant facts and circumstances into consideration before issuing process, lest it would be an instrument in the hands of a private complainant to unleash vendetta to harass any person ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2025 20:32:57 :::CIS 392025:HHC:44791 needlessly. At the same time the section is not an instrument handed over to an accused to short-circuit a prosecution and bring about its sudden death.....
8. As noted above, the powers possessed .
by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate of prosecution. High Court being the highest court of a State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the rt evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceeding at any stage. [See Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary [(1992) 4 SCC 305 : 1993 SCC (Cri) 36 : AIR 1993 SC 892] and Raghubir Saran (Dr.) v. State of Bihar [AIR 1964 SC 1 : (1964) 1 Cri LJ 1] .] It would not be proper for the High Court to analyse the case of the complainant in the light of all probabilities in order to determine whether a conviction would be sustainable and on such premises, arrive at a conclusion that the proceedings are to be quashed. It would be erroneous to assess the material before it and conclude that the complaint cannot be proceeded with. In a proceeding instituted on complaint, ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2025 20:32:57 :::CIS 402025:HHC:44791 exercise of the inherent powers to quash the proceedings is called for only in a case where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do .
not constitute the offence of which cognisance has been taken by the Magistrate, it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code. It is not, however, necessary that there should be meticulous analysis of the case before the trial to find out of whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. The complaint/FIR has to be read as a whole. If it appears that on consideration of the allegations in the rt light of the statement made on oath of the complainant or disclosed in the FIR that the ingredients of the offence or offences are disclosed and there is no material to show that the complaint/FIR is mala fide, frivolous or vexatious, in that event there would be no justification for interference by the High Court. When an information is lodged at the police station and an offence is registered, then the mala fides of the informant would be of secondary importance. It is the material collected during the investigation and evidence led in court which decides the fate of the accused person. The allegations of mala fides against the informant are of no consequence and cannot by themselves be the basis for quashing the proceeding."
56. In this case, petitioners have sought relief of quashing of FIR, mainly on the ground ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2025 20:32:57 :::CIS 412025:HHC:44791 that petitioners No. 1 and 2 cannot be made vicariously liable for the affairs of the petitioner No. 3, in the absence of any averment, made in .
the prosecution complaint, as to how they were responsible for the day-to-day affairs of petitioner No. 3.
of
57. In order to buttress their contention, the petitioners have relied upon the decision of rt Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalankumar Singh & others versus State of Maharashtra, reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1383. Relevant paragraphs 23 to 33 of the judgment are reproduced as under:
"23. In the case of State of Haryana vs. Brij Lal Mittal and others3, this Court observed thus:
"8. Nonetheless, we find that the impugned judgment of the High Court has got to be upheld for an altogether different reason. Admittedly, the three respondents were being prosecuted as directors of the manufacturers with the aid of Section 34(1) of the Act which reads as under:
"34. Offences by companies.--(1) Where an offence under this Act has been committed by a company, every person who at the time the offence was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to the company for the conduct ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2025 20:32:57 :::CIS 422025:HHC:44791 of the business of the company, as well as the company shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly:
Provided that nothing contained in this sub-
.
section shall render any such 2 (2010) 11 SCC 125 3 (1998) 5 SCC 343 person liable to any punishment provided in this Act if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence." 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 of 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 rt company it does not necessarily mean that he fulfils 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, even prima facie, that they were in charge of the company and also responsible to the company for the conduct of its business."
24. It could thus be seen that this Court had held that simply because a person is a director of the company, it does not necessarily mean that he fulfils the twin requirements of Section 34(1) of the said Act so as to make him liable. It has been held that a person cannot be made liable unless, at the material time, he was in- charge of and was also responsible to the company for the conduct of its business.
25. In the case of S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. Neeta Bhalla and another4, this Court was ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2025 20:32:57 :::CIS 432025:HHC:44791 considering the question as to whether it was sufficient to make the person liable for being a director of a company under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. This Court considered the definition of the word "director"
.
as defined in Section 2(13) of the Companies Act, 1956. This Court observed thus:
"8. ....... There is nothing which suggests that simply by being a director in a company, one is supposed to discharge particular functions on behalf of a company. It happens that a person may be a director in a company but he may not know anything about the daytoday functioning of of the company. As a director he may be attending meetings of the Board of Directors of the company where usually they decide policy matters and guide the course of business of a company. It may be that a Board of Directors rt may appoint subcommittees consisting of one or two directors out of the Board of the company who may be made responsible for the daytoday functions of the company. These are 4 (2005) 8 SCC 89 matters which form part of resolutions of the Board of Directors of a company.
Nothing is oral. What emerges from this is that the role of a director in a company is a question of fact depending on the peculiar facts in each case. There is no universal rule that a director of a company is in charge of its everyday affairs.
We have discussed about the position of a director in a company in order to illustrate the point that there is no magic as such in a particular word, be it director, manager or secretary. It all depends upon the respective roles assigned to the officers in a company. ....."
26. It was held that merely because a person is a director of a company, it is not necessary that he is aware about the daytoday functioning of the company. This Court held that there is no universal rule that a director of a company is in charge of its everyday affairs. It was, therefore, necessary, to aver as to how the director of the ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2025 20:32:57 :::CIS 442025:HHC:44791 company was in charge of daytoday affairs of the company or responsible to the affairs of the company. This Court, however, clarified that the position of a managing director or a joint managing director in a company may be .
different. This Court further held that these persons, as the designation of their office suggests, are in charge of a company and are responsible for the conduct of the business of the company. To escape liability, they will have to prove that when the offence was committed, they had no knowledge of the offence or that they exercised all due diligence to of prevent the commission of the offence.
27. In the case of Pooja Ravinder Devidasani vs. State of Maharashtra and another5 this Court observed thus:
rt "17. ...... Every person connected with the Company will not fall into the ambit of the provision. Time and again, it has been asserted by this Court that only those persons who were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the Company at the time of commission of an offence will be liable for criminal action. A Director, who was not in charge of and was not responsible for the conduct of the business of the Company at the relevant time, will not be liable for an offence under Section 141 of the NI Act. In National Small Industries Corpn. [National Small Industries Corpn. Ltd. v. Harmeet Singh Paintal, (2010) 3 SCC 330 : (2010) 1 SCC (Civ) 677 :
(2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 1113] this Court observed:
(SCC p. 336, paras 1314) 5 (2014) 16 SCC 1 "13. Section 141 is a penal provision creating vicarious liability, and which, as per settled law, must be strictly construed. It is therefore, not sufficient to make a bald cursory statement in a complaint that the Director (arrayed as an accused) is in charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company without anything more as to the role of the Director. But the complaint should spell out as to how and in what manner Respondent 1 was in charge of or was responsible to the ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2025 20:32:57 :::CIS 452025:HHC:44791 accused Company for the conduct of its business. This is in consonance with strict interpretation of penal statutes, especially, where such statutes create vicarious liability.
14. A company may have a number of Directors .
and to make any or all the Directors as accused in a complaint merely on the basis of a statement that they are in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company without anything more is not a sufficient or adequate fulfilment of the requirements under Section 141." (emphasis in original) of
28. In Girdhari Lal Gupta v. D.H. Mehta [Girdhari Lal Gupta v. D.H. Mehta, (1971) 3 SCC 189 : 1971 SCC (Cri) 279 :
AIR 1971 SC 2162] , this Court observed that a rt person "in charge of a business" means that the person should be in overall control of the dayto- day business of the Company.
29. A Director of a company is liable to be convicted for an offence committed by the company if he/she was in charge of and was responsible to the company for the conduct of its business or if it is proved that the offence was committed with the consent or connivance of, or was attributable to any negligence on the part of the Director concerned (see State of Karnataka v. Pratap Chand [State of Karnataka v. Pratap Chand, (1981) 2 SCC 335 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 453] ).
30. In other words, the law laid down by this Court is that for making a Director of a company liable for the offences committed by the company under Section 141 of the NI Act, there must be specific averments against the Director showing as to how and in what manner the Director was responsible for the conduct of the business of the company.::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2025 20:32:57 :::CIS
462025:HHC:44791
31. In Sabitha Ramamurthy v. R.B.S. Channabasavaradhya [Sabitha Ramamurthy v. R.B.S. Channabasavaradhya, (2006) 10 SCC 581 : (2007) 1 SCC (Cri) 621] , it was held by this Court that: (SCC pp. 58485, para 7) .
"7. ... it is not necessary for the complainant to specifically reproduce the wordings of the section but what is required is a clear statement of fact so as to enable the court to arrive at a prima facie opinion that the accused is vicariously liable. Section 141 raises a legal fiction. By reason of the said provision, a person of although is not personally liable for commission of such an offence would be vicariously liable therefor. Such vicarious liability can be inferred so far as a company registered or incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 is concerned rt only if the requisite statements, which are required to be averred in the complaint petition, are made so as to make the accused therein vicariously liable for the offence committed by the company." (emphasis supplied) By verbatim reproducing the words of the section without a clear statement of fact supported by proper evidence, so as to make the accused vicariously liable, is a ground for quashing proceedings initiated against such person under Section 141 of the NI Act."
28. It could thus clearly be seen that this Court has held that merely reproducing the words of the section without a clear statement of fact as to how and in what manner a director of the company was responsible for the conduct of the business of the company, would not ipso facto make the director vicariously liable.
29. A similar view has previously been taken by this Court in the case of K.K. Ahuja vs. V.K. Vora and another.
::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2025 20:32:57 :::CIS472025:HHC:44791
30. In the case of State of NCT of Delhi through Prosecuting Officer, Insecticides, Government of NCT, Delhi vs. Rajiv Khurana, this Court reiterated the position thus:
"17. The ratio of all these cases is that the .
complainant is required to state in the complaint how a Director who is sought to be made an accused, was in charge of the business of the company or responsible for the conduct of the company's business. Every Director need not be and is not in charge of the business of the company. If that is the position with regard to a Director, it is needless to emphasise that in the case of nonDirector officers, it is all the more of necessary to state what were his duties and responsibilities in the conduct of business of the company and how and in what manner he is responsible or liable." 6 (2009) 10 SCC 48 7 (2010) 11 SCC 469 rt
31. Recently, in the case of Ashoke Mal Bafna vs. Upper India Steel Manufacturing and Engineering Company Limited8, this Court observed thus:
"9. To fasten vicarious liability under Section 141 of the Act on a person, the law is well settled by this Court in a catena of cases that the complainant should specifically show as to how and in what manner the accused was responsible. Simply because a person is a Director of a defaulter Company, does not make him liable under the Act. Time and again, it has been asserted by this Court that only the person who was at the helm of affairs of the Company and in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business at the time of commission of an offence will be liable for criminal action. (See Pooja Ravinder Devidasani v. State of Maharashtra [Pooja Ravinder Devidasani v. State of Maharashtra, (2014) 16 SCC 1 : (2015) 3 SCC (Civ) 384 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 378 : AIR 2015 SC 675] .)
10. In other words, the law laid down by this Court is that for making a Director of a Company liable for the offences committed by ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2025 20:32:57 :::CIS 482025:HHC:44791 the Company under Section 141 of the Act, there must be specific averments against the Director showing as to how and in what manner 8 (2018) 14 SCC 202 the Director was responsible for the conduct of the business of the Company."
.
32. In the light of these observations, let us examine the averments made in the complaint insofar as the present appellants are concerned:
"3. That, Accused no. 5 to 8 are the Directors of the M/s Cachet Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. village Thana Baddi, Tehsil Nalagarh dist. Solan (H.P.) Pin code 173205 head office 415, of Shahanahar, Worli, Mumbai 400018, and looking after day to day activities of the company.
That, Accused no. 4 is the Pvt. Ltd. Company rt and is doing the business of manufacturing, buying, selling, importing and exporting of and/or dealers in Pharmaceuticals, Cosmetics, Beauty aids, Oils, Chemicals, Food products and provisions, Veterinary and Surgical Equipments, Medicinal preparations including Spirit.
That, Accused no. 4 has mfg. unit at no. (1) Village Thana Baddi, Tehsil Nalagarh Dist. Solan (H.P.) Pin code 173205 and no. (2) at C- 582, Ricco Ind. Area Bhiwadi, Dist. Alwar, Rajasthan.
That, Accused no.4 are holding drug mgf. License No. MNB/05/267 in form 25 and licence no. MB/05/268 in form 28 granted on 17.3.2006 valid upto 16.3.2011. *** *** ***
25. That, on 12.2.2009, the complainant visited and inspected the premises of M/s Cachet Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. village Thana Baddi, Tehsil Nalagarh Dist. Solan (H.P.) Pin code 173205 that is accused no.4. At the time of inspection, Shri Ajay Prakash Gupta Vice ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2025 20:32:57 :::CIS 492025:HHC:44791 President Technical, accused no. 9 and 10 were present.
During enquiry, it was revealed that Accused no. 4 to 10 manufactured "Hemfer syrup Mfg. Lic. No. MB/05/268/B. No. HMS/6015 Cmfg.
.
Date May 2006 which has been declared to be NOT OF STANDARD QUALITY at the premises of M/s Cachet Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. village Thana Baddi, Tehsil Nalagarh Dist. Solan (H.P.) Pin code 173205 that is accused no.4 under licence No. MB/05/268 and sold the above said drugs to M/s Priya Agencies Behind Dr. Vaidya of Hospital Jalna Road, Beed, Dist. Beed through M/s Alkem Laboratories Ltd. situated at reality warehousing Pvt. Ltd., Gut No.2323/1 property no. 115, Pune Nagar road, At. Post Wagholi, Tai. Haveli, Dist. Pune 412207."
rt
33. It can thus be seen that there are no specific averments insofar as the present appellants are concerned. It is further to be noted that the present appellants are neither the managing director nor the wholetime directors of the accused company."
(self emphasis supplied)
58. If the facts and circumstances of the present case are seen in the light of the above decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Lalankumar's case (supra), this Court is of the view that no benefit could be derived by the petitioners, from the aforementioned case, as, in the present case, specific allegations have been ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2025 20:32:57 :::CIS 502025:HHC:44791 levelled in the supplementary complaint, filed by the Drugs Inspector, against the petitioners. In this regard, it is apt for this Court to reproduce .
para 25 of the supplementary complaint:
"25.That on dated 04.08.2023, Mr. Manu Pillai, Assistant Manager purchase at M/s Pinnacle Life Sciences joined the investigation and produced the requisite documents and the statement of Mr. Manu Pillai was recorded Enclosed as of Annexure $23(12 pages) and he declared that, "
The communication was done with Mr. Ankit ([email protected] & Mr. Ankush Singla ([email protected]) & with Harish at email- [email protected] of M/s KC Overseas. The rt mail id [email protected] is handed & used for company work by me & purchase team is under my control and security. We have submitted self certified copies of email and other communication done with M/s JRS Pharma and M/s KC Overseas w.e.f. 02.03.2022 to 03.11.2022". He further declared that, "all communication with M/s KC Overseas was in well knowledge of Mr. Ankit Singla and Mr. Ankush Singla, as all e mail regarding to sale to our firm were copied to Ankit Singla and Ankush Singla."
59. Not only this, in para-42 of the complaint, a stand has been taken that debit notes were manipulated. Para-42 of the supplementary complaint is reproduced as under:
42. That accused Ankit Singla and Ankush Singla did not disclosed sale record of 275 Kg of spurious drug' Explotab', till date and moreover submitted manipulated debit note of same materials to reconcile the quantity of spurious drugs and also did not submitted purchase ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2025 20:32:57 :::CIS 512025:HHC:44791 record of carton/ packing materials used for manufacturing of spurious drugs which were seized from premises of M/s KC Overseas P Ltd along with other materials and did not disclosed the purchase record of labels used for manufacturing of spurious drugs in connivance .
with M/s Allied Pharma Chem and investigation from Ankit Singla and Ankush Singla is not complete as Ankit Singla and Ankush Singla after dismissal of anticipatory bail by Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla willfully absconded and concealed themselves."
60. However, in the reply to the petition, a of stand has been taken that although those debit notes appeared to be genuine, as informed by rt the Assistant Commissioner, Central GST Baddi Distt Solan, HP, but, it has been submitted in the reply that those were not shown in GST returns.
61. As held above, while deciding the petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. (528 BNSS), this Court would not conduct the mini trial, but, the stand, as taken by the Drugs Inspector in the reply, cannot be ignored. The genuineness of non-mentioning of these debit notes, in the GST ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2025 20:32:57 :::CIS 522025:HHC:44791 return, would be considered by the learned trial Court.
62. Although, in the present case, a specific .
stand has been taken by the petitioners that they have appointed Harish Kumar, as competent person of the Company, however, as per the of stand taken in the complaint, as referred to above, as well as, according to the stand of the Drugs rt Inspector, taken in the reply, the respondent has, prima-facie, made a case in his favour, according to which, petitioners No. 1 and 2 were responsible for the affairs of the firm M/s K.C. Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Hence, the petitioners cannot take the benefit of Section 34 of the Act to get them absolved from the liability, as alleged, against them, in the complaint. Moreover, Section 34 of the Act does not give blanket immunity to the Director, merely on the ground that the competent person has been appointed/nominated by the Company. Granting ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2025 20:32:57 :::CIS 532025:HHC:44791 total immunity on the basis of appointment of competent person by ignoring the allegations as alleged against petitioners No. 1 and 2 in the .
supplementary complaint, will be against the legislative intent. The situation would have been otherwise, had the allegations, as contained in of paras 25 and 42 been not in the supplementary complaint.
63. rt Simply, on the basis of the fact that the competent person, under Rule 61 of the Rules, has been appointed by petitioner No. 3, does not exonerate petitioners No. 1 and 2, from their liability, being Directors of the company, as their direct involvement in the alleged offences, has been pleaded by the complainant. In view of the stand taken in the complaint-respondent, especially in paras 25 and 42 of the supplementary complaint, the alleged defence of petitioners No. 1 and 2 that neither they are incharge nor responsible for the day-to-day ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2025 20:32:57 :::CIS 542025:HHC:44791 affairs of the company, would be proved during the trial of the case.
64. In view of aforesaid observations, there is .
no merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed. The pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of.
of (Virender Singh) Judge 18.12.2025 (Kalpana) rt ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2025 20:32:57 :::CIS