cran611.10
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 611 OF 2010
Dr. Krishnagopal Agrawal s/o
Mannalal Jindal @ Agrawal,
Age 52 years, Occ. Medical Practitioner,
R/o. 8/3, Manorama Ganj, D-2,
Deepshikha Apartment,
Indore (MP) ...Applicant
Versus
State of Maharashtra,
Mr. N.P. Bhandarkar,
Drug Inspector in the office of
Food and Drugs Administration
Osmanabad, Dist. Osmanabad ...Respondent
(Copy to be served on Additonal Public
Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature of
Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad)
.....
Mr. N.B. Suryawanshi, advocate for the applicant
Mr. N. R. Shaikh, A.P.P. for respondent
.....
CORAM: A.V. POTDAR, J.
DATED: 20TH APRIL, 2011
JUDGMENT :-
1 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the
parties, heard finally at the stage of admission.
2 By the present criminal application filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C., the applicant, who was arrayed as accused No.3, prays to
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:12:21 :::
cran611.10
-2-
quash and set aside R.C.C. No. 208 of 1996 pending on the file of
learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class Kallam, District Osmanabad, to
the extent of the present applicant. The complaint is filed by the Drugs
Inspector, Food and Drugs Administration, Osmanabad on behalf of
the State for the offences punishable under Sections 18(a) (i) and
19(a)(vi) r.w. Sections 16, 18-B, 28-A, 27(d) of the Drugs and
Cosmetics Act 1940 r.w. Section 34 of I.P.C.
3
I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned APP
for the State. I have also perused the grounds on which quashing is
claimed by the present applicant. I have also perused affidavit in reply
filed by the State.
4 It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the
applicant that the Drugs Inspector Shri. N.P. Bhandarkar, attached to
the Office of Food and Drugs Administration at Osmanabad on
10.7.1995 had visited the shop of Chemist by name M/s. Sanjay
Bandhu Chemist at village Shiradhon, Tq. Kallam and drawn samples
of drugs viz. Framyoetin skin cream, septaneomyoin cream,
manufactured in India by M/s. Dujohn Laboratory Limited having its
factory at Indore. The Drugs Inspector further contended that he sent
one portion of the sample for analysis to the Drugs Control authority at
Bombay as per the procedure and Rules provided under the provisions
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:12:21 :::
cran611.10
-3-
of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. It is further averred in the said
complaint that Government analyst, Drug control lab. Bombay vide its
analytical report dated 18.3.1996 reported that the said sample is not
of standard quality drug for the reason given in the said report. It is
alleged that the present applicant is one of the Director of the said
company hence, he was arrayed as one of the accused in the said
complaint. In the affidavit in reply, it is alleged that the said information
was collected by the Drugs Inspector concerned from the Manager of
the said company.
5 It is contended across the bar that the applicant was not director
of M/s. Dujohn Laboratory Limited on the date when the samples were
collected by the Drugs Inspector from the concerned shop. Neither he
was director when the complaint was lodged before learned J.M.F.C.
at Kallam on 28.6.1996 and the process was issued.
6 Relying on the documents tendered alongwith present
application, learned counsel for the applicant would urge that the
documents on record i.e. Report submitted to the Registrar of
Companies by M/s. Dujohn Laboratory Limited indicate that the
present applicant was appointed as Director of the said company on
6.8.1992 and ceases to be the Director of w.e.f. 1.3.1994. No doubt,
this report was submitted to the Registrar of Companies clearly
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:12:21 :::
cran611.10
-4-
indicates that since 1.3.1994 as the applicant was ceases to be the
director of the said company, he must not be held responsible for the
activities and business of the said company. Learned counsel for the
applicant further placed reliance on the agreement of settlement
entered into between the Directors of the said M/s. Dujohn Laboratory
Limited dated 19.8.1993. Clause 5 of the said agreement, according
to the learned counsel for the applicant, discloses that the applicant
ceases to be the Director of the said Company from the date on which
Director interse entered into an agreement of settlement. However,
the said document is a private document executed by the parties
interse and will not take effect of public document, hence the same
cannot be relied upon. Learned counsel for the applicant further urged
that in the present case the procedure laid down under the company
law and the Rules laid down thereunder is not followed. Every
company Registered under the provisions of Companies Act, required
to publish annual report of the company. The applicant has also
produced copy of the annual report of M/s. Dujohn Laboratory Limited
for the year 1993-1994 and this report is published/made available to
the public at large on 20.8.1994. In the said report, names of existing
directors of the company were disclosed. My attention is drawn to the
list in which the names of Directors/Board of Directors of the company
are mentioned, in which name of present applicant does not appear.
According to learned counsel annual report, which is made available to
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:12:21 :::
cran611.10
-5-
the public at large and also submitted to the Registrar of Company
coupled with the annual report later on submitted about directors
existing as well as past clearly indicate that from 1.3.1994 onwards the
present applicant ceases to be Director of company, hence, he is not
liable for any prosecution in the complaint in which he has arrayed as
an accused.
7 Para 15 of the complaint reads as follows:-
“15. That the accused Nos. 2 to 8 are the Directors of Accused
No.1 i.e. Dujohn Lab Ltd. Indore and they are responsible for
contravention of sec. 18(a) (i) and 18(a)(vi) r.w. Sec. 16 and 34 and
also section 18 B r/w Section 34 of the said Act.”
For clarity, it is necessary to quote these sections, which read as
follows:-
Section 16. Standards of quality- (1) For the purposes of this
Chapter, the expression “standard quality” means –
(a) in relation to a drug, that the drug complies with the
standard set out in, and
(b) In relation to a cosmetic, that the cosmetic
complies with such standard as may be prescribed.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:12:21 :::
cran611.10
-6-
18. Prohibition of manufacture and sale of certain
drugs and cosmetics: From such date as may be fixed by the
State government by notification in the Official Gazette in this
behalf, no person shall himself or by any other person on his
behalf-
(a) [manufacture for sale or for distribution, or
sell, or stock or exhibit or offer for sale] or distribute-
(i) any drug which is not of a standard quality,
or is misbranded, adulterated or spurious;
(vi) any drug or cosmetic in contravention of any
of the provisions of this chapter or any rule madethereunder;
(b) [sell or stock or exhibit or offer for sale,] or
distributing any drug [or cosmetic] which has beenimported or manufactured in contravention of any of the
provisions of this Act or any rule made thereunder;
[18-B Maintenance of records and furnishing of
information;- Every person holding a license under clause (c)
of Section 18 shall keep and maintain such records, registers
and other documents as may be prescribed and shall furnish to
any officer or authority exercising any power or discharging any
function under this Act such information as is required by such
officer or authority for carrying out the purposes of this Act.]
34. Offences by companies;- (1) Where an offence
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:12:21 :::
cran611.10
-7-
under this Act has been committed by a company, every person
who at the time of offence was committed, was in charge of, and
was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business
of the company, as well as the company shall be deemed to be
guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against
and punished accordingly.
Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall
render any such person liable to any punishment provided in
this Act if he proves that the offence was committed without his
knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to present the
commission of such offence.
8 In the light of the above quoted relevant sections from Drugs
and Cosmetic Act, 1940, more particularly Section 34 of the Act,
speaks for offence by the Company and and who are responsible if the
offence is committed by the company. On plain reading of Section 34,
it clearly indicate that every person who at the time of offence was
committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to the company for
the conduct of the business of the company as well as the company
shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be
proceeded against and punished accordingly (emphasis supplied).
9 Thus, from bare perusal of above quoted Sections from Drugs
and Cosmetics Act, 1940, more particularly Section 34 of the said Act,
the mandate of law required that the persons who are responsible for
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:12:21 :::
cran611.10
-8-
the offence committed under the provisions of this Act must be in
charge and/or was responsible of the company for the conduct of
business of the company are main and basic requirements. The
documents on record clearly indicate that from 1.3.1994 onwards the
present applicant ceases to be the Director of the said company.
Nothing is on record to show that after applicant ceases to be Director
of the company in any way he is connected with the business of the
company or manufacturing of the product of the company as the
complaint is silent on this aspect. On the contrary, on bare perusal of
the averments in para 1 and 5 of the complaint indicate that the
applicant is arrayed as an accused in the said offence in the capacity
of the director of the company. Perusal of the averments in the
affidavit in reply indicate that this information is collected by the Drug
Inspector from the Manager of the Company. Admittedly, it is not
averred in the complaint that information is received from the Manager
of the company. Whatever it may be, the annual report of the
company is a public document so also annual report submitted by the
company with the Registrar of the company is also a public document.
Bare perusal of the averments in the affidavit in reply filed by the State
have not commented on these documents at all. It is not the case that
these documents are false, forged or fabricated documents prepared
by the applicant just to get advantage of discharge from the
prosecution. In absence of any comments about validity or
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:12:21 :::
cran611.10
-9-
genuineness of the public document on which the reliance is placed by
the applicant, the genuineness of these documents are requires to be
accepted as these documents are public documents and available to
the public at large.
10 It is tried to urge across the bar that this defence to be put up by
the applicant at the time of trial. The fact remains that if on bare
perusal of the public document made available that the applicant who
is arrayed as an accused in the capacity as Director of the company,
at the material time was not the director of the company, cannot be
held responsible for the offence allegedly committed by the company,
if any, by virtue of provisions of Section 34 of the Drugs and Cosmetic
Act, 1940. It that be so, further prosecution against the applicant
would be an abuse of process of law. In view of this legal position,
application succeeds.
11 In the result, application is allowed in terms of prayer clause “B”
and stands disposed of. Rule made absolute accordingly. No costs.
*****
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:12:21 :::