Drugs and Cosmetics: Vicarious Liability Not Made Out

Picture of Stpl law

Stpl law

Quashing of Prosecution Against Directors: High Court Rules on Vicarious Liability for Substandard Drugs

In the judgment of Paramjit Arora and Another v. State of Himachal Pradesh, the High Court of Himachal Pradesh quashed a criminal complaint and summoning order against two directors of a pharmaceutical company. The Court ruled that directors cannot be held vicariously liable for the manufacture of substandard drugs under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, unless there are specific allegations that they were in charge of the company’s day-to-day operations.

Case Background: The Substandard Anaesthesia

The case originated from a 2021 inspection where a Drugs Inspector drew a sample of “Lignocaine and Adrenaline Injection I.P.” manufactured by M/s Health Biotech Limited.

  • The Report: The Government Analyst declared the sample “Not of Standard Quality” because it failed to conform to the required assay of Adrenaline Bitartrate.
  • The Prosecution: Following a series of inquiries tracing the drug from distributors back to the manufacturer, the State instituted a criminal complaint against the company and its directors under Sections 18(a)(i) and 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.

The Dispute: Mere Designation vs. Active Management

The petitioners, who were directors of the manufacturing firm, challenged the proceedings on the ground that they had no active role in the manufacturing process.

  • Lack of Specific Averments: The petitioners argued that the complaint was silent regarding their involvement in day-to-day functions and failed to establish their vicarious liability under Section 34 of the Act.
  • Technical Director Defense: The company had officially appointed a Technical Director (Mr. Rohini Raman Pathak) who was notified to the Registrar of Companies and the Licensing Authority as the person specifically responsible for the manufacturing affairs of the drugs.
  • Role Limitation: The petitioners contended that as directors, their roles were restricted to financial management rather than pharmaceutical production.

Legal Principles: Vicarious Liability under Section 34

Justice Sandeep Sharma relied on extensive Supreme Court precedents (including Bhajan Lal and S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals) to define the limits of corporate criminal liability:

  • The Two-Fold Requirement: Under Section 34, for a person to be deemed guilty of an offense committed by a company, the prosecution must prove they were (a) in charge of and (b) responsible to the company for the conduct of its business at the material time.
  • No Automatic Liability: The Court emphasized that there is no “magic” in the word “Director”. Simply holding a title does not create a presumption that the individual is aware of or responsible for everyday affairs.
  • Mandatory Specificity: A complaint must contain clear and unambiguous allegations as to how and in what manner the director was responsible for the conduct of the business. Bald statements or merely reproducing the text of the statute are insufficient.

The Court’s Findings and Quashing of Complaint

The High Court found that the prosecution’s case against the petitioners was fatally flawed:

  • Absence of Evidence: The complaint was completely silent regarding the petitioners’ specific roles in manufacturing.
  • Authorized Representative: Because the department had already recognized a specific Technical Director as the person responsible for manufacturing, there was no legal basis to prosecute other directors for quality failures.
  • Abuse of Process: The Court concluded that allowing the trial to continue against the petitioners would be a “futile trial” and a “weapon of harassment,” as the prosecution was bound to fail.

Final Ruling

The High Court allowed the petition and quashed the criminal complaint and summoning orders insofar as they related to the two petitioner-directors. They were discharged from the case.

STPL (Web) 2026 HP 149

Paramjit Arora And Another V. State of Himachal Pradesh (D.O. J. 02-04-2026)

Loading Viewer...

Share
Next Story

Jurisdictional Limits of Gram Panchayats: High Court Quashes Order on Private Path

April 28, 2026 No Comments

Jurisdictional Limits of Gram Panchayats: High Court Quashes Order on Private Path

In the judgment of Amar Chand v. Braham Lal, the High Court of Himachal Pradesh quashed an order by a civil court that sought to enforce a Gram Panchayat’s directive regarding a path on private land. The Court ruled that Gram Panchayats lack the jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes concerning the obstruction of paths on private property, rendering such orders a legal nullity that cannot be enforced.

Case Background: The Panchayat’s Directive

The dispute began when a respondent complained that the petitioner, Amar Chand, was hindering a path located on his private property.

  • The Panchayat Order: On January 13, 2015, Gram Panchayat Kuddi issued an order directing the petitioner to open the path for the general public and threatened fines for future obstructions.
  • Execution in Civil Court: When the petitioner failed to comply, the respondent sought execution of the order under Section 71 of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. The Civil Judge at Bilaspur subsequently issued a warrant of attachment against the petitioner’s property to force compliance.

Key Legal Findings: Scope of Section 41

Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj set aside the execution order, emphasizing that the Gram Panchayat had “usurped” jurisdiction it did not possess.

  • Limited Judicial Functions: Under Section 41 of the H.P. Panchayati Raj Act, a Gram Panchayat’s judicial jurisdiction is strictly limited to specific minor civil suits (valued under ₹2,000), such as money due on contracts (excluding immovable property), recovery of movable property, and cattle trespass.
  • No Power over Private Land Paths: The Court found that neither the Panchayati Raj Act nor the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act empowers a Gram Panchayat to determine rights or obstructions related to a path on private land. Such matters are the exclusive domain of Civil Courts and cannot be determined in summary proceedings.
  • A Decree without Jurisdiction is a Nullity: Relying on Supreme Court precedents like JagmittarSain Bhagat v. Director, Health Services, Haryana, the Court held that if an authority lacks “subject matter jurisdiction,” its findings are irrelevant and inexecutable.
  • Waiver Does Not Apply: The respondent argued that the order had become final because the petitioner failed to appeal it. However, the Court ruled that jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent or by a failure to object; a void order remains a nullity and can be challenged at any stage of the proceedings.

Final Ruling

The High Court concluded that since the Gram Panchayat’s original order was passed without the authority of law, the subsequent execution proceedings in the civil court were also invalid.

The Court’s Directives:

  • Revision Petition Allowed: The petition filed by Amar Chand was allowed.
  • Order Quashed: The Civil Judge’s order dated January 7, 2020, which issued the warrant of attachment and directed the unblocking of the path, was quashed and set aside.

STPL (Web) 2026 HP 166

Amar Chand V. Braham Lal (D.O.J. 27.04.2026)

Loading Viewer...

Next Story

Rash and Negligent Driving: Driving on The Wrong Side

April 28, 2026 No Comments

In the judgment of State of H.P. v. Yudhvir Singh, the High Court of Himachal Pradesh set aside a trial court’s acquittal and convicted a driver for rash and negligent driving. The Court ruled that driving on the wrong side of the road constitutes negligence per se and that minor contradictions in testimony due to the passage of time cannot be used to discard a credible prosecution case.

Case Background: The Collision

The incident occurred in December 2008 when the respondent, driving a Mahindra Bolero, hit a motorcyclist from the opposite direction near a factory in Kangra. The motorcyclist (informant) sustained grievous injuries. While the respondent admitted to being the driver, he claimed the accident was caused by the motorcyclist’s own negligence for not looking forward.

Trial Court’s Initial Acquittal

The Trial Court originally acquitted the driver based on three main factors:

  • Witness Credibility: It found minor contradictions in the informant’s testimony regarding who took him to the hospital.
  • Informant’s Attention: An eyewitness (PW3) admitted in cross-examination that the motorcyclist was looking toward the factory just before the hit.
  • Non-examination of Witnesses: The prosecution failed to examine one person who was allegedly present at the scene.

High Court’s Grounds for Reversal

Justice Rakesh Kainthla found the Trial Court’s view to be perverse and contrary to the evidence based on the following legal principles:

  • Wrong-Side Driving as Negligence: The site plan and photographs clearly established that the respondent was driving on the right (wrong) side of the road. The Court held that under Rule 2 of the Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989, a driver must stay to the left. Had the respondent stayed on his side, the accident would not have occurred regardless of where the motorcyclist was looking.
  • Failure of Memory vs. Falsehood: The Court ruled that discrepancies in witness statements (e.g., who provided medical aid) are natural when testifying nearly four years after an incident and do not affect the “core” of the testimony.
  • Procedural Error Regarding Evidence: The High Court noted that the Trial Court improperly used the informant’s previous police statement to discredit him without following the mandatory procedure under Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, which requires a witness to be confronted with the specific parts of a statement they are alleged to have contradicted.
  • Adverse Inference: The Court clarified that an “adverse inference” for not examining a witness only applies if the existing evidence is insufficient; here, the site plan and photographs were enough to prove the case.

Final Verdict and Conviction

The High Court allowed the State’s appeal and convicted the respondent under:

  • Section 279 of the IPC (Rash driving on a public way).
  • Section 338 of the IPC (Causing grievous hurt by act endangering life or personal safety).

Separate convictions under Section 337 IPC and Section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act were deemed unnecessary under Section 71 of the IPC. The respondent was ordered to appear for sentencing on May 12, 2026.

STPL (Web) 2026 HP 165

State Of H.P. V. Yudhvir Singh(D.O.J. 27.04.2026)

Loading Viewer...

Share
Next Story

Industrial Dispute: Belated Reinstatement Claim Dismissed

April 28, 2026 No Comments

High Court Dismisses Belated Reinstatement Claim in Labor Dispute

In the judgment of Hari Dass v. Union of India and Others, the High Court of Himachal Pradesh dismissed a writ petition seeking reinstatement and back wages. The Court ruled that the petitioner failed to substantiate his claims with evidence, approached the Court with significant delay, and invoked the wrong legal forum.

The Dispute: Alleged Verbal Termination

The petitioner claimed he was engaged as a worker in 2007 and that his services were verbally and illegally terminated in 2011. He sought a writ of mandamus for re-engagement with full back wages, seniority, and continuity of service, alleging that the respondents had reinstated other similarly situated persons in 2014 while ignoring him.

The respondents contested these claims, stating that the petitioner was a casual paid laborer engaged only from May 21, 2009, to August 10, 2009, and was discharged once the available work was completed.

Key Judicial Findings

Justice Ajay Mohan Goel dismissed the petition based on several critical procedural and substantive grounds:

  • Total Lack of Evidence: The Court noted that the petitioner failed to append a single document or annexure to his petition to prove his period of service or the alleged verbal termination. Consequently, his contentions were entirely unsubstantiated by the record.
  • Delay and Laches: Even if the petitioner’s version of events were true, he approached the Court in 2016 for a termination that allegedly occurred in 2011. The Court found this to be a highly belated approach.
  • Alternative Remedy: The Court held that alleged violations of the Industrial Disputes Act must be agitated before the specific statutory fora (Labor Courts/Tribunals) provided under that Act. A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not the appropriate vehicle for such disputes, as the Industrial Disputes Act provides both substantive and procedural remedies.
  • Loss of Efficacy due to Age: The petitioner was 53 years old when he filed the petition in 2016 and had reached 63 years of age by the time of the judgment. The Court concluded that the petition had lost its efficacy as the petitioner had passed the typical age of service.

Final Ruling

The High Court concluded that the petition was meritless and dismissed it, along with any pending miscellaneous applications.

STPL (Web) 2026 HP 164

Hari Dass V. Union Of India And Others(D.O.J. 25.04.2026)

Loading Viewer...

Share
Next Story

HP Recruitment & Conditions of Service of Government Employees Act, 2024 Held unconstitutional and ultra vires

April 28, 2026 No Comments

In the judgment of Devinder Kumar &Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh &Anr. (and hundreds of connected petitions), the High Court of Himachal Pradesh declared the Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Government Employees Act, 2024, to be unconstitutional and ultra vires. The Court quashed the entire Act, ruling that the State cannot use legislation to nullify judicial mandates or exploit employees by denying them service benefits for work performed under “contract” labels.

The Dispute: Legislative Overrule of Seniority Rights

The State enacted the 2024 Act (Act No. 23 of 2025) to retrospectively alter the service conditions of thousands of employees who began their careers on a contract basis.

  • The Act’s Goal: It sought to classify “contract appointments” as a distinct mode of recruitment that did not count as “public service”. Under the Act, seniority, increments, and pension benefits would only accrue from the date of regularization, effectively wiping out years of past contract service.
  • The Retrospective “Substitution”: Section 8 of the Act attempted to retrospectively change all Recruitment and Promotion (R&P) Rules since 2003, replacing the words “on contract basis” with “by regularisation” to circumvent previous court rulings.

Key Judicial Findings

Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Romesh Verma identified several constitutional failures in the Act:

  • Encroachment on Judicial Power: The Court held that while a legislature can change the basis of a law, it cannot simply declare a binding judicial decision (such as the Taj Mohammad or Lekh Ram cases) as “wrong” or “ineffective”. This was viewed as a direct breach of the Separation of Powers.
  • Violation of Equality (Articles 14 & 16): The Court found that contract employees who were recruited through the same competitive process as regular employees (via the Public Service Commission) were “identically situated”. Denying them seniority while granting it to regular peers was deemed manifestly arbitrary and discriminatory.
  • Financial Constraints are Inadmissible: The State argued the Act was necessary to avoid a “huge burden on the State Exchequer”. The Court rejected this, asserting that paucity of funds is no excuse to shirk statutory duties or deny established legal rights to employees.
  • Constitutional Scheme for Recruitment: The Act created a “mess” by proposing a mode of recruitment where individuals would perform the duties of a government servant but would not technically be “in service” until regularized. The Court ruled this bypassed the constitutional mandate for regular public employment.

Final Ruling and Directives

The High Court concluded that the Act was a “colourable exercise of power” designed to facilitate exploitative labor practices.

  1. Act Quashed: The Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Government Employees Act, 2024, is void ab initio.
  2. Withdrawals Nullified: All State actions based on the Act—such as withdrawing seniority or proposing recoveries of pay—are declared illegal and null.
  3. Mandatory Compliance: The State is directed to extend all service benefits, including seniority and increments, to the affected employees in terms of previous court mandates within three months.

STPL (Web) 2026 HP 163

Devinder Kumar & Ors. V. State Of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.(D.O.J. 25.04.2026)

Loading Viewer...

Share

Recent Articles