“There is no averment in Annexure-1 that the petitioner was in charge of day-to-day business of the Company and was the person responsible for the conduct of the business of the Company. The petitioner is the Chairman of the Company and simply because a person becomes Chairman or a Director of the Company does not mean that he is fully responsible for the day-to-day affairs of the Company. Vicarious liability can be inferred against a company or its Directors only after satisfying the condition u/s.34 of the Drugs and Cosmetic Act. Person made liable should be in charge of the company at the relevant time, which cannot be presumed from the complaint. Otherwise it may result in implication of innocent Chairman and Directors who have no connection with the offence and thereby cause miscarriage of justice. Therefore, this is a fit case to invoke the inherent jurisdiction under the Code to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioner. It is clarified that, while quashing the proceedings, there is no bar for the 2nd respondent to prosecute the person in charge of and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company, according to law. Hence, I quash all proceedings in C.C.No.2408/2003 against the petitioner, who is the second accused, pending before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam invoking inherent jurisdiction U/s.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.”
