Case: State Of Haryana Vs. Brij Lal Mittal

had expired. In this process the petitioners (the respondents before us) lost their right to get the sample re-analysed from the Central Drugs Laboratory. The petitioners counsel rightly alleges that a valuable right has lost and this caused prejudice to the petitioners." 7. At the risk of petition, we wish to emphasise that the right to get the sample examined by the Central Drugs Laboratory through the Court before which the prosecution is launched arises only after the person concerned notifies in writing the Inspector or the Court concerned (here the latter clause did not apply for the prosecution was to be initiated) within twenty-eight days from the receipt of the copy of the report of the Government Analyst that he intends to adduce evidence in controversion of the report. The complaint and its accompaniments (which include correspondence that took place between the Inspector and the manufacturers) clearly disclose that on February 19, 1991 the Inspector served the original copies of the Analysts report upon the Managing Director of the manufacturers along with two letters asking for their comments. They further disclose that receiving no reply from the manufacturers the Inspector again wrote a letter on March 6, 1991 directing them to reply to his letters dated February 19, 1991 and asked whether they wanted to take benefit of the provisions of Section 25(3) of the Act. In spite thereof the manufacturers did not exercise their right (much less within 28 days from the date of the receipt of the report of the Government Analyst i.e. February 19, 1991); and, on the contrary, in their letter dated April 8, 1991, annexed to the complaint), sent in response to the letter dated March 6, 1991, asserted that their quality control department examined and tested samples of the two drugs and found that they complied with the test of sterility. It must, therefore, be said that consequent upon their failure to notify the Inspector that they intended to adduce evidence in controversion of the report within 28 days, not only the right of the manufacturers to get the sample tested by the Central Drugs Laboratory through the Court concerned stood extinguished but the report of the Government Analyst also became conclusive evidence under sub-section (3). The delay in filing the complaint till the expiry of the shelf life of the drugs could not, therefore, have been made a ground by the High Court to quash the prosecution. It will not be out of place to mention that the manufacturers right under sub-section (3) expired four months before the expiry of the shelf life of the drugs. In view of the above discussion, the reasoning of the High Court for quashing the prosecution against the three respondents cannot at all be sustained. 8. Nonetheless, we find that the impugned judgment of the High Court has got to be upheld for an altogether different reason. Admittedly, the three respondents were being prosecuted as directors of the manufacturers with the aid of Section 34 (1) of the Act which reads as under: "OFFENCES BY COMPANIES:(1) Where an offence under this Act has been committed by a company, every person who at the time the offence was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly:Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any such person liable to any punishment provided in this Act if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence." It is thus seen that the vicarious liability of a person for being prosecuted for an offence committed under the Act by a company arises if at the material time he was in-charge of and was also responsible to the company for the conduct of its business. Simply because a person is a director of the company it does not necessarily mean that he fulfils both the above requirements so as to make him liable. Conversely, without being a director a person can be in-charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of its business. From the complaint in question we, however, find that except a bald statement that the respondents were directors of the manufacturers, there is no other allegation to indicate, even prima facie, that they were in-charge of the company and also responsible to the company for the conduct of its business. 9. In Delhi Municipality v. Ram Kishan, (1983) 1 SCC 1 , while dealing with the applicability of Section 17(1) of the Prevention of the Food Adulteration Act, 1954, which is in pari materia with section 34(1) of the Act, on similar facts, this Court observed as under: "So far as the Manager is concerned, we are satisfied that from the very nature of his duties it can be safely inferred that he would undoubtedly be vicariously liable for the offence, vicarious liability being an incident of an offence under the Act. So far as the Directors are concerned, there is not even a whisper nor a shred of evidence nor anything to show, apart from the presumption drawn by the complainant, that there is any act committed by the Directors from which a reasonable inference can be drawn that they could also be vicariously liable. In these circumstances, therefore, we find ourselves in complete agreement with the arguments of the High Court that no case against the Directors (accused Nos. 4 to 7) has been made out ex facie on the allegations made in the complaint and the proceedings against them were rightly quashed." (emphasis supplied) 10. Since we are in respectful agreement with the view so expressed we dismiss this appeal and uphold the order of the High Court quashing the prosecution against the three respondents on a different ground. 11.

Court's decision (1 = petition accepted / positive for appellant, 0 = rejected / negative): 0

Reasoning from the judgment:
0[ds]5. From a bare perusal of sub-section (3) it is manifest that the report of the Government Analyst shall be evidence of the facts stated therein and such evidence shall be conclusive unless the person from whom the sample was taken or the person whose name, address or other particulars have been disclosed under Section 18A (in this case the manufacturers) has within 28 days of the receipt of the report notified in writing the Inspector or the Court before which any proceeding in respect of the sample are pending that he intends to adduce evidence in controversion of the report. Sub-section (4) also makes it abundantly clear that the right to get the sample tested by Central Government Laboratory (so as to make its report override the report of the Analyst) through the Court accrues to a person accused in the case only if the had earlier notified in accordance with sub-section (3) his intention of adducing evidence in controversion of the report of the Government Analyst. To put it differently, unless requirement of sub-section (3) is complied with by the person concerned he cannot avail of his right under sub-section (4).6. On perusal of the impugned judgment we are constrained to say that the High Court did not properly consider the provisions of sub-section (3) nor did it appear to have perused the complaint and the documents annexed thereto before concluding that the respondents were deprived of their right under sub-section (4).Since we are in respectful agreement with the view so expressed we dismiss this appeal and uphold the order of the High Court quashing the prosecution against the three respondents on a different ground.