Amit Kumar Sharma vs. The State Of Maharashtra

Facts

The applicant, Amit Kumar Sharma, is the General Manager-Sales for 'Captab Biotec', a proprietorship firm licensed to sell drugs. He was arrested on 23.11.2023 in connection with the supply of 2000 bottles of Triprolidine Hypochloride & Codeine Phosphate Syrup to 'New Mahavir Medical'. The prosecution's case stems from the receipt of payment by 'Captab Biotec' for this supply. The applicant, an employee drawing a monthly salary, acted on behalf of the company, issuing a GST invoice and E-way bill for the consignment dispatched to 'New Mahavir Medical' in Vapi, Gujarat. The bank statement for 'Captab Biotec' shows a business relationship with 'New Mahavir Medical' and an advance payment received on 22.08.2023, followed by cash deposits on 29.08.2023 against the invoice. The charge-sheet has been filed, and the applicant has been incarcerated since his arrest.

Held

The Court held that the arrest and continued incarceration of the applicant, Amit Kumar Sharma, were not justified. The Court found that the applicant, as an employee of 'Captab Biotec', acted on behalf of the company in a transaction that was conducted under the company's license, with a GST invoice and E-way bill. The Court noted that the prosecution had not taken action against the proprietor of 'Captab Biotec' or the proprietor of 'New Mahavir Medical', making the arrest of an employee questionable. Prima facie, the Court observed that the investigation was not conducted properly, with alleged violations of Section 50 of the Cr.PC and Section 52-A of the NDPS Act. The Court found that the entire batch of syrup was transported and delivered under proper documentation. Given that the investigation was complete and charge-sheet filed, there was no justification for keeping the applicant in custody any longer. The Court directed the immediate release of the applicant on bail, subject to furnishing a Personal Recognizance bond and surety.

Key Issues

1. Whether the arrest and continued incarceration of the applicant, an employee of 'Captab Biotec', is justified given that the transaction was conducted by the company under its license and GST invoice, and the proprietor of 'Captab Biotec' has not been arrested or prosecuted. (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning the principles of vicarious liability and the role of an employee in a corporate transaction). 2. Whether there was a violation of Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and Section 52-A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, in the conduct of the investigation, particularly in the drawing of samples. (Question of law, concerning procedural compliance in criminal investigations). Petitioner's Arguments: Mr. Namboodiri argued that the applicant acted solely on behalf of 'Captab Biotec' in a transparent, legal, and valid transaction, fully compliant with the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and its Rules. He highlighted that the company possesses the necessary license and that all correspondence and documentation, including the GST invoice and E-way bill, were in order. He contended that the prosecution's action of arresting an employee while not taking action against the proprietor of 'Captab Biotec' or the proprietor of 'New Mahavir Medical' is unjustified. He also pointed to alleged violations of Section 50 Cr.PC and Section 52-A NDPS Act. Respondent's Arguments: Ms. Yadav, APP, drew attention to the statement of Mr. Sumit Mayyer, which indicated that appropriate investigation should take place regarding the receipt of amounts. She argued that the three subsequent payments received by the company were not from 'New Mahavir' but from other accused persons, forming the basis of the indictment.