Vague and Ambiguous Complaint Quashed: High Court Calls Out Mechanical Drafting in Drug Case

Justice Wani emphasizes the need for specific allegations under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar has quashed the proceedings against Sandeep Vijh, the Managing Director of M/s Knox Life Sciences, in a case filed under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The decision, delivered by Hon’ble Justice Javed Iqbal Wani, highlighted the absence of specific averments required under Section 34 of the Act, thus rendering the prosecution legally untenable from the outset.

The case originated from a complaint filed by the Drug Inspector, Baramulla, alleging violations of Sections 18(a)(i) and 27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 by M/s Knox Life Sciences. The complaint was initially lodged on November 20, 2012, and the Additional Sessions Judge, Baramulla, subsequently took cognizance and issued a summons to the accused, including the petitioner, Sandeep Vijh.

Justice Wani observed that the complaint failed to include specific allegations demonstrating that Sandeep Vijh was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the company’s business at the time of the alleged offense. The judgment underscored that merely holding the position of Managing Director is insufficient to presume liability under Section 34 of the Act without detailed accusations.

Application of Section 34:

The court clarified the requirements of Section 34, stating, “The person in charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company must be a person in overall control of the day-to-day business.” The absence of such specific allegations in the complaint rendered the prosecution’s case against Vijh legally unsustainable.

Justice Wani extensively discussed the principles of vicarious liability under Section 34 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. He noted, “A person cannot be held liable merely based on their designation without explicit averments establishing their responsibility for the business’s conduct at the time of the offense.” The judgment emphasized that the complaint’s vague and ambiguous nature, devoid of detailed allegations, could not support the initiation of proceedings against Vijh.

Justice Wani remarked, “The impugned complaint and the proceedings initiated thereon are legally unsustainable ab initio, and the plea of delay raised by the respondents is rendered irrelevant and insignificant.” He further stated, “A bare perusal of the impugned complaint prima facie tends to show that the same is vague, ambiguous, and cryptic, having been drawn and drafted mechanically without application of mind.”

The High Court’s decision to quash the proceedings against Sandeep Vijh underscores the necessity for detailed and specific allegations in complaints under Section 34 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. This judgment reaffirms the legal principle that merely holding a managerial position in a company does not automatically entail liability for alleged offenses without concrete averments demonstrating control and responsibility. The ruling is expected to have significant implications for future prosecutions under the Act, ensuring stricter adherence to procedural requirements.

Date of Decision: July 20, 2024

Sandeep Vijh vs. State through Drug Inspector Baramulla (HQ)