NARENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This misc. petition under section 482, Crimial P.C. is directed against the order dated 10.7.1989 of the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nimbaheda, whereby he issued process against 11 persons including the petitioner under sections 17(a)(f), 17(b)(d), 18(a)(i), 27(b)(i) & 27(c) of Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940.

(2.) Mr. Charan, pointing out that in the complaint it has not been stated that the petitioner was incharge of and was responsible for the conduct of the business of the Company, contends that the learned Magistrate has erred in issuing process against him. He cites the cases of Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Ram Kishan Rohtagi, AIR 1983 SC 67 , State of Haryana Vs. Brij Lal Mittal, AIR 1998 SC 2327 & M/s. Bharat Insecticides Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan, 1997 (1) WLC (Raj.) 657 .

(3.) The learned Public Prosecutor contends that it is not disputed that the petitioner-Narendra Singh is the director of the Company which had manufactured the drug, found to be adulterated, and therefore, the learned Magistrate was perfectly justified in issuing process against him.