Question of pre-emptive bail to two individuals who are accused of engaging in the production, sale, and distribution of below the required quality standard hand sanitizer.
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Sunita Dhawan & Anr.
Vs.
Union of India
2023:PHHC:086391
Coram HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
DATE: 11.07.2023
FACTS:
In June 2020, a group formed by the Drug Inspector, following the orders of the Deputy Drugs Controller, conducted sample collection of hand sanitizers in the Kharar and Zirakpur areas of Mohali. Samples of sanitizer were taken from M/s Gupta Medical Hall, Phase-1 Mohali, and these sanitizers, produced by M/s Dr. Edwin Lab, were found not to meet the required quality standard, as indicated by the Government analysts’ report. The partners of the sanitizer company, who are the petitioners in this case, were charged under various sections of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, including Sections 32, 16, 17-A(f), 17-B(d), 18(a)(i), 18(a)(vi), and 18(c), read in conjunction with Sections 27(b)(1), 27(c), 27(d), and 36-AC of the same Act. Concerned about possible arrest, the partners filed an anticipatory bail plea. Their argument was that they had no personal knowledge of the alleged seizure of samples of “pure handrub/sanitizer,” as there was no search or seizure of such samples conducted on their premises. None of the petitioners were present at the location, therefore they had no direct or indirect involvement in the purported confiscation of the drug samples, as they contended.
COURT ANALYSIS AND DECISION:
Justice Moudgil observed that the petitioners were partners of the firm responsible for manufacturing the hand sanitizers, which were introduced during the Covid-19 pandemic. Upon examination, these sanitizers were found to be not only of substandard quality but also contained a harmful substance, 77.43% v/v Methanol. Justice Moudgil explained further that for Sub-section (1) of Section 34 of the Act, the fundamental requirement is to establish a prima facie case that the specific person/accused was in charge of the company and accountable for its operations. This clause potentially encompasses a wide range of individuals associated with the company, including Directors and Managers, making them liable to be charged and prosecuted. In light of these accusations, the bench denied the anticipatory bail plea.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Awardsunitadhawanandanothervsunionofindiaon11july2023-481230 and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Srijan Garg