LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Lalankumar Singh & Ors. vs. The State of Maharashtra

Criminal Appeal · 2022 INSC 1061Decided 11 Oct 2022
Criminal Appeal No. 1757 of 2022
B.R. Gavai · C.T. Ravikumar

Background

The appellants were Directors of Cachet Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. (CPPL), a licensed manufacturer of "Hemfer Syrup." After a Drugs Inspector's sample of the syrup was found substandard (deficient Cyanocobalamin content), a criminal complaint was filed and the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Beed, issued process against the appellants and others. The appellants challenged this before the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad bench), which dismissed their writ petition and upheld both the order of issuance of process and the Sessions Court's dismissal of their revision petition, leading to this appeal.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court found the complaint lacking in specific averments against the appellants under Section 34 of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act. They were neither the managing director nor whole-time directors, and the complaint failed to show they were in charge of and responsible for the company's day-to-day conduct, as required for vicarious liability. Separately (and independently), other named accused had already been specifically approved under the relevant Rules as the persons responsible for manufacturing supervision and quality testing, further undermining any case against the appellant-directors. The Court also found a fundamental procedural defect: no formal order of issuance of process had actually been passed by the CJM. The High Court had merely inferred from the "Roznama" (daily case-diary notings) that such an order existed. Relying on precedent (Sunil Bharti Mittal), the Court held that an order issuing process is not an empty formality and must reflect the Magistrate's application of mind that a prima facie case exists; presuming such an order from incidental record entries, with no actual reasoned order, is legally unsustainable. The appeal was allowed, the process-issuance and revision-dismissal orders were quashed, and the complaint against the appellants alone was dismissed (proceedings against the remaining accused were to continue).

Lesson Learnt

Directors of a company cannot be roped into criminal liability merely by virtue of their designation: a complaint must specifically aver how they were in charge of and responsible for the company's affairs; and an order issuing criminal process against an accused must itself reflect the magistrate's actual application of mind, not be inferred after the fact from incidental court-diary entries.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Criminal Law

Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Charming Rupon v. State of Meghalaya

The Supreme Court acquitted the accused, finding the prosecution's case riddled with serious doubt. Both the victim and her cousin (a key witness) admitted in cross-examination that they could not identify the accused and that his name had been supplied to them by the victim's mother, raising a strong suspicion of tutoring, especially since the victim admitted she had been coached by the public prosecutor before testifying. The mother's own conduct (not reacting urgently despite being told of the assault, and material facts missing from the belated FIR) was found "unnatural." A crucial witness, the school teacher whose disclosure triggered the FIR, was never examined, without explanation, warranting an adverse inference against the prosecution. The Court also noted that two medical witnesses were never meaningfully cross-examined because the defence counsel was absent on the relevant dates, and that the trial court had wrongly brushed aside credible alibi evidence led by the accused.

Decided 9 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Ramkrushna Prahllad Dongardive v. The State of Maharashtra

The Supreme Court restored the trial court's acquittal. It found that the prosecution never produced the original cashbooks, daily registers, or audit reports that would have actually proven the appellant was entrusted with and misappropriated the money: the investigating officer himself admitted these documents were never shown to him despite being asked for. The department also failed to produce records the appellant had specifically sought in his own defence. Separately, the search and seizure of documents from the appellant's house was legally doubtful, since both independent witnesses to the seizure turned hostile and denied knowing its contents, and the mandatory procedural safeguards for such a seizure were not followed. The Court also flagged that the High Court convicted the appellant for the very first time on appeal without ever hearing him on the question of sentence, which the law required it to do.

Decided 8 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Gurpreet Singh vs. State (NCT of Delhi)

The Court accepted that the order recalling the proclaimed offender status be placed on record. Noting that the complainant was untraceable and the prosecution itself raised no serious objection to anticipatory bail, the Court found no reason to deny the applicant liberty. It granted anticipatory bail, directing release on a personal bond of Rs. 20,000 with one surety in the event of arrest.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Mukesh Rani vs. Narcotics Control Bureau

The Court noted the investigation was complete, the chargesheet was filed, the co-accused had already been granted bail, and the combined quantity recovered (1.976 kg) still fell short of the "commercial quantity" threshold under the NDPS Act. With ten witnesses yet to be examined and no indication the trial would conclude quickly, the Court found continued detention unnecessary and granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Aakash vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

The Court noted that all prosecution witnesses, including the complainant and the guest house manager, had already been examined, and that a co-accused in the same FIR had already been granted bail. Given the complainant's own testimony about voluntary association with the petitioner and the completed trial evidence, the Court found the overall facts favoured bail. It granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions (reporting to police weekly, not influencing witnesses, providing address/mobile details).

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Kundan Kumar vs. State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

The Court relied on earlier Delhi High Court rulings holding that whether a broken promise of marriage was "false" from the outset (criminal) or a mere "breach" (not criminal) is a question for trial, not something requiring custodial interrogation. Noting the investigation was complete and the applicant had no prior criminal record, the Court granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with conditions, clarifying the order was not an opinion on the merits.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case