Lalankumar Singh & Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra (Supreme Court of India)
Supreme Court of India has quashed criminal proceedings against the directors of M/s Cachet Pharmaceuticals Private Ltd. (CPPL) in a case concerning the manufacture of a sub-standard drug. The apex court, in the case of Lalankumar Singh & Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra, ruled that merely being a director of a company is not enough to establish vicarious liability under Section 34 of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 (the Act), without specific averments detailing their role in the offence.
The case originated in 2006 when a Drugs Inspector in Beed, Maharashtra, collected a sample of ‘Hemfer Syrup’ manufactured by CPPL. Subsequent testing by the Government Analyst and the Central Drug Laboratory, Calcutta, confirmed that the syrup was “not of standard quality” due to insufficient Cyanocobalamin content.
Following this, a complaint was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Beed, under Section 18(a)(i) read with Sections 16 and 34 of the Act, punishable under Section 27(d). The present appellants, directors of CPPL, were arrayed as accused Nos. 5 to 8.
The CJM issued summons to all accused, including the directors. The directors challenged this summoning order, arguing that the complaint lacked specific averments regarding their individual roles, as required by Section 34 of the Act. Their revision petition before the Sessions Judge, Beed, was dismissed, with the Sessions Judge noting a general averment that the appellants were “concerned with the manufacture, distribution and sale” of the drug. The Bombay High Court subsequently upheld this decision, stating that all directors were “conducting the business” and thus “involved in the manufacturing process.”
