Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J. - (1.)The present criminal misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner stating that the cognizance against the petitioner has been wrongfully taken as there is no specific averment made in the complaint of being directly responsible for the conduct of the business or even indirectly the petitioner cannot be said to be responsible for the conduct of the business of sale of drugs and the allegations levelled under Section 18(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act of 1940') would be barred in terms of Section 34 of the Act of 1940. Thus, the petitioner cannot be said to have committed any offence and therefore, it is prayed that the cognizance of offences under Section 18 (c) and 27 (b)(ii) of the Act of 1940 vide order dated 30.10.2014 taken as against him be quashed.
(2.)Learned counsel submits that the petitioner challenged the order dated 30.10.2014 in a revision, which has been wrongfully rejected by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge No.10, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur vide order dated 27.4.2018. Counsel relies on State of Haryana Versus Brij Lal Mittal & Others, 1998 CrLJ 3287, Ashok H. Maheshwari & Others Versus State of Rajasthan,2004 2 CrLR 1627(Raj.) and the order dated 15.12.2011 passed in Sharad Kumar Sanghi Versus The State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.688/2005 in support of his contentions.
(3.)Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioner would come within the ambit of being responsible to the company for the conduct of its business and would thus be liable in terms of Section 34(1) and therefore, the cognizance has been rightly taken as he was holding the post of Trustee and authorized Secretary of the hospital and it has been specifically averred that he was responsible for the administration of the hospital.