Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
Anand S. Bhandari, Proprietor of M/s. Chaitanya General Stores – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition to quash criminal proceedings. (Para 1 , 5) |
| 2. conclusion: petition dismissed. (Para 2) |
| 3. arguments regarding party necessity and jurisdiction. (Para 3 , 4 , 10) |
| 4. ratio on necessary parties and jurisdiction to prosecute. (Para 6 , 14) |
| 5. court's analysis on jurisdiction and cognizance. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 12) |
ORDER :
S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY, J.
1. The petitioners are before this Court with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings in S.C. No.31 of 2024 pending before the Court of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Gadag, registered for the offence under Sections 18 (c), 18A, 22(1)(cca) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, punishable under Sections 27 (b)(ii), 28 and 22(3) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition submits that the Company which has manufactured the drug is not arrayed as a party to the impugned proceedings and therefore, there is no compliance of Section 34 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 in the present case. He submits that the complaint is filed before the Court of Magistrate, which is not the jurisdictional
The absence of a manufacturing company as a party does not invalidate proceedings against sellers of drugs without a license, and jurisdictional issues raised by the defendants were ineffective due t....
The jurisdiction of a Magistrate to try offences under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act remains valid despite amendments, as certain sections preserve this jurisdiction for offences with lesser penalties.
The court established that under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, no court inferior to a Sessions Court can try offenses under Chapter IV, and any sentence imposed must adhere to the minimum requirements....
Unauthorised sale of drugs and violation of license conditions – Section 468 of Cr.P.C. is not applicable.
The court ruled that jurisdiction over offences under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act relating to Ayurvedic medicines lies exclusively within Magistrate Courts, invalidating cognizance taken by the Sessi....
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.
Before issuing process in a criminal complaint, the court must ensure that there are allegations and material on record suggesting the accused's involvement in the alleged offences. Additionally, the....
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
