Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Dr. Krishnagopal Agrawal, filed a criminal application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of R.C.C. No. 208 of 1996 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kallam, District Osmanabad, to the extent of his involvement. The complaint was filed by the Drugs Inspector, Food and Drugs Administration, Osmanabad, alleging offences under Sections 18(a)(i) and 19(a)(vi) read with Sections 16, 18-B, 28-A, 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The samples of drugs (Framyoetin skin cream and septaneomyoin cream) were collected on 10.7.1995 from a chemist shop, and the Government Analyst reported on 18.3.1996 that the samples were not of standard quality. The applicant was arrayed as accused No.3 on the ground that he was a director of the manufacturing company, M/s. Dujohn Laboratory Limited. The applicant contended that he was not a director of the company on the date of sample collection (10.7.1995) or on the date of filing the complaint (28.6.1996). He relied on documents to show his resignation as director prior to these dates. The court, after hearing both sides, found that the applicant was not a director at the relevant time and that there was no material to show his involvement in the alleged offence. The court held that continuing the proceedings against him would be an abuse of the process of law and quashed the complaint to the extent of the applicant.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Vicarious Liability - Director's Liability - Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, Sections 18(a)(i), 19(a)(vi), 16, 18-B, 28-A, 27(d) r/w Section 34 IPC - The applicant was not a director of the company on the date of sample collection or complaint filing - Held that no vicarious liability can be imposed on a person who was not a director at the relevant time, and continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of process of law (Paras 5-7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether criminal proceedings can be sustained against a person who was not a director of the company on the date of the alleged offence under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.
Final Decision
The court allowed the application and quashed R.C.C. No. 208 of 1996 to the extent of the applicant.
Law Points
- Vicarious liability under criminal law requires the accused to be in a position of control at the time of the offence
- Director must be in office on the date of the alleged offence to be prosecuted
- Quashing under Section 482 CrPC for abuse of process when no prima facie case exists
