Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.20 seconds)
Mrs. Meenaz Moloobhay vs The State Of Maharashtra on 21 March, 2000 cites

M/S. Pepsi Foods Ltd. & Anr vs Special Judicial Magistrate & Ors on 4 November, 1997

6. In view of the aforesaid facts, the learned counsel Mr. Shore rightly challenged the impugned order convicting the applicants herein for the offence under Section 18(c) read with Section 27(b)(ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. Mr. Shore also relies on Section 34 of the Act relating to the offences by Companies and contends that otherwise also unless the partners are shown to be in charge of, and were responsible to the firm for the conduct of the business of the firm, they shall not be deemed to be guilty to the offence and, therefore, cannot be liable to be proceeded against and punished under the provision of the said Act. He also contended that by virtue of Explanations (a) and (b) to Section 34, the provision of Section 34 would be applicable to the partnership firm and the partners. Mr. Shore also challenged the Impugned order of conviction on the ground that the summons were not served personally on the applicants as required under Section 62(2) and (3) of the Cr. P. C. He relies on the recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Anr. v. Special Judicial Magistrate and Ors., in which it is observed by the Supreme Court that the issuing of summons against the accused without applying mind to the facts of the case and without examining if any prima facie case is made out against any of the accused is Illegal.
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 3106 - D P Wadhwa - Full Document
1