UNISON PHARMACEUTICALS Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of instant petition, petitioners have prayed for following relief:

(2.) The grievance of the petitioners in nut-shell is that the complaint Annexure P-1 filed by the Drug Inspector before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra is bad in law insofar as petitioners are concerned. It is submitted that petitioners No. 2 and 3 are partners of petitioner No.1 and the complaint Annexure P-1 is completely silent as to involvement of the petitioners in the commission of alleged offences under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and the Rules framed thereunder. It has further been submitted that the partners of the firm can be held vicariously liable for offence, if any, committed by the firm in case the ingredients and requirements of Sec. 34 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act are fulfilled.

(3.) Perusal of record reveals that the Drug Inspector has filed a complaint under Sec. 18 (a) (i) read with Sec. 27 (d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 on the allegation that a drug manufacturing by petitioner No.1 as per the report of Government Analyst was declared as "not of standard quality". However, the names of petitioners No. 2 and 3 do not find mention in the array of accused persons. Only petitioner No.1 alongwith ten others have been named as accused. In view of the non-impleadment of petitioners No. 2 and 3 as accused, the instant petition on their behalf is not maintainable being without any cause of action having arisen in their favour.