Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 1964 (3) TMI HC This
Issues:
Application in revision against order of discharge and further inquiry regarding sub-standard Olive Oil supply to hospital under Drugs Act, 1940. Analysis: The case involved an application in revision by two individuals against the order of discharge and direction for further inquiry by the Additional Sessions Judge regarding the supply of sub-standard Olive Oil to a hospital under the Drugs Act, 1940. The complaint was filed by the Inspector of Drugs alleging an offence under Section 27 read with Section 18 of the Act. The evidence presented included the supply of Olive Oil, sample testing, and a report by the Government Analyst. However, no proof was provided regarding the applicants' association with the company responsible for the supply. The Magistrate initially discharged the applicants, but the Additional Sessions Judge overturned this decision, prompting the revision. The judgment highlighted the importance of judicial evidence in determining the guilt of the accused. It emphasized that evidence actually adduced in the case, not potential evidence, should be considered. The applicants' statement implied their partnership in the company, leading to the assumption that they were directors. However, being a director alone does not establish criminal liability under Section 27 of the Act. The prosecution carries the burden of proving charges, and mere association with a company does not automatically render one criminally liable for the company's actions. The judgment delved into the provisions of Sections 27 and 34 of the Act, outlining the categories of individuals who could be convicted of the offence under Section 27, including the actual seller, the principal on whose behalf the drug was sold, and those in charge of the company's business. It clarified that directors or partners could only be convicted if their consent, connivance, or neglect led to the offence. Merely being a director or partner does not suffice for criminal liability unless specific elements are proven. In this case, the lack of evidence linking the applicants to the company's actions or negligence meant that no charge could be framed against them. The judgment emphasized that the admission of partnership did not establish responsibility for the company's conduct. Therefore, the order for further inquiry was deemed unlawful, and the applicants were discharged of the offence. The judgment also suggested that the Drugs Inspector should have collected necessary evidence before filing the complaint, hinting at the importance of thorough investigation before legal action.
|