9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (8) TMI 1167X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the company and, therefore, when a drug manufactured by the company was found to be defective, all the directors could be prosecuted. The High Court, however, left it to the concerned parties to prove before the Trial Court that they were not in any way responsible for the manufacture process. The High Court proceeded on the basis of specific language of Section 34(2) of the Drugs Cosmetics Act, 1940 (for short the Act ) and proceeded to hold that the complaint filed against the directors could not be disposed of under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as it required appreciation of the facts on the basis of the evidence to be led before the Trial Court. 3. When the matter came up before this Court, the Special Leave Petition filed on behalf of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Block No. 457, Chhatral, Ta. Kalol, District Gandhinagar and its directors. Earlier to that, in para 4 of the complaint, the complainant had referred to the written representation given by accused No. 1 - director of the firm and accused No. 2 Himansu C. Patel and Quality Assurance Manager - Mr. Mehul M. Rao during the inspection to the inspecting authorities. That representation is not before us. 6. We have gone through the decision of Brij Lal Mittal (supra). In Brij Lal Mittal case (supra), the offence complained of was under Section 27 of the Act. The High Court had quashed the proceedings therein on the ground that the prosecution was launched after shelf-life of drugs had expired in the month of July, 1991 and as a consequence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onduct of its business. Simply because a person is a director of the company it does not necessarily mean that he fulfills 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. 7. In our opinion, the factual situation in both the matters is quite different which is apparent from the fact that firstly the contro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... culiar circumstances of this case and realizing the seriousness of the allegations, we would not take a technical view based on pleadings in the complaint. Mr. Raichura contended that as per the settled law by this Court in complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against company and directors also specific averment about the active role of directors in running the company has to be made, failing which the directors cannot be proceeded against. Same logic should apply even in the present case. We cannot agree. Firstly, the language of Section 34(2) of the Act substantially differs from the language of Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Secondly, here we are dealing with the offence which has the direct impa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
