Quashed

M/S Unison Pharmaceuticals and Others v. State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC1 Sept 2022CRMMO/50/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh dismissed a petition seeking quashing of a drug case. It held that partners not named in the complaint lack maintainability while the merits regarding Section 34 liability belong to the trial court.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the petition to the extent it was maintainable for petitioners not named as accused; deferred decision on Section 34 benefit.

M/S Unison Pharmaceuticals and Others Vs State of Hp — Corruption | Himachal Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

REPORTABLE/NON-REPORTABLE

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA ON THE 1^st DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SATYEN VAIDYA. CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION (MAIN) NO. 50 OF 2019

¶5

Between:-

¶6

1. M/S UNISON PHARMACEUTICALS THROUGH MANAGING DIRECTOR/PARTNERS OF M/S UNISON PHARMACEUTICALS, PLOT NO. 124, EPIP, INDUSTRIAL AREA, JHARMAJRI BADDI, SOLAN, H.P.

¶7

2. SH. VIJAY KUMAR UPPAL, PARTNER, M/S UNISON PHARMACEUTICALS, PLOT NO. 124, (HQ PALAMPUR KANGRA) EPIP, INDUSTRIAL AREA, JHARMAJRI BADDI, SOLAN, H.P.

¶8

3. SH. ANAND UPPAL, PARTNER M/S UNISON PHARMACEUTICALS, PLOT NO. 124 (HQ PALAMPUR KANGRA) EPIP, INDUSTRIAL AREA, JHARMAJRI BADDI, SOLAN, H.P.

¶9

…PETITIONERS

¶10

(BY SH. ANAND SHARMA, SR. ADVOCATE WITH SH. KARAN SHARMA AND SH. NITIN BHASIN, ADVOCATES)

¶11

AND

¶12

1. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH THROUGH DRUG INSPECTOR, HEAD QUARTER PALAMPUR, DISTRICT KANGRA, H.P.

¶13

2. MR. PREM NATH, SON OF JANG BAHADUR SINGH, GENERAL MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S UNISON PHARMACEUTICALS, PLOT NO. 124, EPIP, INDUSTRIAL AREA, JHARMAJRI BADDI, SOLAN, H.P.

¶14

¶15

3. MR. ARUN KUMAR SIDHWANI, MANUFACTURING CHEMIST, O/O M/S UNISON PHARMACEUTICALS, PLOT NO. 124, EPIP, INDUSTRIAL AREA, JHARMAJRI BADDI,SOLAN, H.P.

¶16

4. MR. AMIT SHARMA, MANUFACTURING CHEMIST, O/O M/S UNISON PHARMACEUTICALS, PLOT NO. 124, EPIP, INDUSTRIAL AREA, JHARMAJRI BADDI, SOLAN, H.P. 5. MR. RAVINDER SINGH, MANUFACTURING CHEMIST, O/O M/S UNISON PHARMACEUTICALS, PLOT NO. 124, EPIP, INDUSTRIAL AREA, JHARMAJRI BADDI, SOLAN, H.P.

¶17

6. MR. RAKESH S. SHAH, MANUFACTURING CHEMIST, M/S UNISON PHARMACEUTICALS, PLOT NO. 124, EPIP, INDUSTRIAL AREA, JHARMAJRI BADDI, SOLAN, H.P. 7. MR. BHASKAR MONDAL, PROP. M/S SUNSUI ASSOCIATES, 287, ULIPARA ROAD, W.NO. 15, P.O. AND P.S. BRUIPUR (BEHIND HOSPITAL) SOUTH 24, PARGANAS, WEST BENGAL. 8. MRS. MEERA CHAUHAN, PROP. CUM COMPETENT PERSON M/S CHAUHAN OPTICS AND HEARING AID, LAKKAR BAZAR, SHIMLA-1, H.P. 9. MR. HARISH KUMAR PATHANIA, PARTNER M/S EES AAR, MEDICAL AGENCY, NEAR TANDA, NAGROTA BAGWAN, KANGRA, H.P. 10. MR. KRISHAN SHARMA, PARTNER M/S EES AAR, MEDICAL AGENCY, NEAR TANDA, NAGROTA BAGWAN, KANGRA, H.P. 11. MR. MOHINDER SINGH CHAUDHARY S/O SH. HARI SINGH C/O EES AAR AGENCY NEAR RPGMC, TANDA, NAGROTA BAGWAN, KANGRA, H.P.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SH. NARENDER THAKUR, DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL, FOR R-1).

¶20

¶21

(SH. JAGAN NATH, ADVOCATE, FOR R-2 TO R-4).

¶22

(RESPONDENTS No.5 & 6 EX PARTE)

¶23

(MR. ANUJ NAG, ADVOCATE, FOR R-7).

¶24

(MR. LAKSHAY THAKUR, ADVOCATE FOR R-8 TO 11.

¶25

….RESPONDENTS.

¶26

RESERVED ON : 25.08.2022 DECIDED ON : 01.09.2022

¶27

This petition coming on for pronouncement of order

¶28

this day, the Court passed the following:

¶29

O R D E R

¶30

By way of instant petition, petitioners have prayed for

¶31

following relief:

¶32

“It is, therefore, respectfully submitted that taking account the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present petition may kindly be allowed and the Case No. 1/2018 (215-II/2018), titled as State of Himachal Pradesh vs. M/s Unison Pharmaceuticals under Section 18 (a) (i) read with Section 27(d) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940 and Rules 1945 thereunder pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra, qua the petitioners, to secure the ends of justice may kindly be quashed and set aside any any other relief as per the facts and circumstances of the case as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit may kindly be passed in the interest of justice.”

¶33

¶34

The grievance of the petitioners in nut-shell is that the complaint Annexure P-1 filed by the Drug Inspector before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra is bad in law insofar as petitioners are concerned. It is submitted that petitioners No. 2 and 3 are partners of petitioner No.1 and the complaint Annexure P-1 is completely silent as to involvement of the petitioners in the commission of alleged offences under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and the Rules framed thereunder. It has further been submitted that the partners of the firm can be held vicariously liable for offence, if any, committed by the firm in case the ingredients and requirements of Section 34 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act are fulfilled.

¶35

Perusal of record reveals that the Drug Inspector has filed a complaint under Section 18 (a) (i) read with Section 27 (d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 on the allegation that a drug manufacturing by petitioner No.1 as per the report of Government Analyst was declared as “not of standard quality”. However, the names of petitioners No. 2 and 3 do not find mention in the array of accused persons. Only petitioner No.1 alongwith ten others have been named as accused. In view of the non-impleadment of petitioners No. 2 and 3 as accused, the instant petition on their

¶36

¶37

behalf is not maintainable being without any cause of action having arisen in their favour.

¶38

As regards, petitioner No.1, no benefit can be derived

¶39

under Section 34 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The said provision only protects the Directors of the Company or Partners of the Firm from prosecution under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and the rules framed thereunder in case of fulfilment of requirements of said section. Petitioner No.1 cannot derive benefit thereunder. The complaint against petitioner No.1 cannot be said to be not maintainable. The merits of the case are to be decided during trial of the case. In exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure this Court will not venture into the merits of the allegations and counter-allegations levelled by the complainant and accused.

¶40

The petition is disposed of in above terms. It is, however, clarified that this order will not be a bar for petitioners No. 2 and 3 to avail appropriate legal remedy in case of their impleadment as accused in the complaint Annexure P-1 in future.

¶41

1^st SEPTEMBER, 2022 (Satyen Vaidya) (GR) Judge

M/S Unison Pharmaceuticals and Others v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Unison Pharmaceuticals and Others v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arvind Chaudhary Vs Harish Chander

Baldev Singh Vs Poornima Chauhan

Naresh Kumar Sharma Vs Kamlesh Kumar Pant and Anr.

Chatru Vs Surinder Sood

Municipal Corporation Shimla Vs Naresh Kumar Sood

Ramesh and Others Vs Land Acquisition Collector