Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.45 seconds)Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
State Of Haryana vs Brij Lal Mittal & Ors on 30 April, 1998
15. On consideration of the rival submission of the learned Counsels
appearing for the Petitioners and the Respondent, the submission of the
learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the Drug
Controller of Government of India is found acceptable and reasonable in the
circumstances of this case as gathered from the records. Therefore, reliance
placed by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner on the reported ruling of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in (1998) 5 SCC 343 in the case of State of
Haryana Vs. Brij Lal Mittal and others will not help the case of the
Petitioner. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the Respondent,
A-1/Company is represented by the Directors of the Company/A-2 to A-5.
Therefore, they are aware that without obtaining license from the competent
Page No.12 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.5381 of 2019
authorities under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, they are manufacturing and
selling the drugs without license. Therefore each of the directors are
responsible cannot be ignored or treated lightly. Therefore, the arguments of
the learned Counsel for the Petitioners is rejected.
Section 34 in The Drugs And Cosmetics Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
Dinesh B. Patel & Ors vs State Of Gujarat & Anr on 6 August, 2010
On demand of license by the Drugs
Controller, Pondicherry, A-1 submitted the documents which were found to
be fictitious. On verification with the Drug Controller, Pondicherry and the
State Drug Controller of Tamil Nadu, it was found that no license had been
granted to A-1 company by either the Drug Controller, Pondicherry or the
State Drug Controller of Tamil Nadu. Under those circumstances, Drug
Controller had preferred a complaint before the Special Court under the
Drugs and Cosmetics Act, learned Principal District Judge, Pondicherry. On
receipt of summons, the Accused 1 to 4 had approached this Court by filing
this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., He relied on the ruling of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2010) 11 SCC 125 in the case of Dinesh
B.Patel and others Vs. State of Gujarat and another and placed reliance on
the ratio laid down in that case. Further, learned Central Government
Standing Counsel for the Respondent submitted that very serious offence of
Page No.10 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.5381 of 2019
this nature committed by the Company cannot be treated leniently, lightly by
any Court having consideration for the health of the general public. A-1 is
the Company involved in the manufacture of the drugs without obtaining
permission from the competent Authorities under the Drugs and Cosmetics
Act, the Petitioners viz., A-1 to A-4 before the learned Special Judge,
Principal District Judge, Pondicherry had indulged involved in the
manufacture of Drugs, without obtaining prior permission and marketed the
same to the public causing dangerous consequence to the members of the
public to their health to the life. Under those circumstances, the Company is
criminally liable for the Acts done by the Company. The Company is
managed in its day to day affairs by the Directors of the Company cannot
claim as a defence that the overt acts specified by the Drugs Controller in the
private complaint has affecting the maintainability of the private complaint.
It is enough, if the Company is shown as an Accused and the directors are
also arrayed as Accused in their capacity as directors of the Company, are
responsible to day to day management of the Company.
1