Back
M. G. UMA
Snapdeal Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
ORDER
1. The petitioner in Criminal Petition No.102191 of 2021 being accused No.1 and the petitioners in Criminal Petition No.102201 of 2021 being accused Nos.2 and 3 are before this Court seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them and pending in C.C.No.6652 of 2021 on the file of I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC Court at Hubballi, for the offences under Section 18(c) which is punishable under Section 27(b)(ii) and 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (for short 'the Act').
2. The brief facts of the case as stated by the complainant-respondent is that, accused No.1 - Snapdeal is an online site owned and operated as a Company having its registered office at New Delhi, represented by accused Nos.2 and 3, engaged in shopping by providing platform for online marketing and selling of various consumer products. The drug by name SUHAGRA 100 tablets were displayed for sale in the said online site and same is being sold to various customers. Accused No.1 is the company doing business, accused Nos.2 and 3 are the Directors-cum-Promoters and Chief Executive Officer/Chief Operating Officer of accused No.1 and they are responsible for its day to day conduct of the busine
The main legal point established in the judgment is that intermediaries, as defined under the Information Technology Act, are exempt from liability for the actions of vendors/sellers using their plat....
Cheating – Quash of proceedings - criminal proceedings cannot be initiated after a period of 6 years, irrespective of the applicability of limitation period in terms of Section 468 of the Cr. P.C or ....
Intermediaries are not liable for third-party sales under the Drugs Act, especially when there's a significant delay in filing complaints.
Point of law: Quash of Criminal proceedings –Rejected - Disputed question of facts to be raised before trial court -
A stockist cannot be held liable for drug quality violations if not impleaded in the prosecution, highlighting the necessity of prosecuting the manufacturer under the relevant legal framework.
The court ruled that a storekeeper cannot be prosecuted for failing to disclose drug acquisition details if he did not procure the drugs, rendering the trial court's cognizance void.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
