Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
MILIND N.JADHAV
P.R.Naik – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
1. Heard Ms. Vrishali Raje, learned Advocate appearing for the Applicants and Dr. Krishnaiyer, learned APP for the State-Respondent.
2. This Criminal Revision Application is filed by Original Accused No.1 and Accused No.8 taking exception to the twin judgments of conviction and sentence dated 26.4.2001 passed by the Trial Court and dated 19.7.2002 passed by the Sessions Court. Originally there were ten accused in the case. Indictment has been translated into conviction and sentence against Accused Nos. 1 and 8 only. Prosecution is alleged for offences punishable under the provisions of Section 18(a) (i) r/w. Section 17(b) and punishable under Section 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (for short "the said Act") under Rule 19 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules. Complaint was filed by the Drug Inspector against four persons initially viz. Shri P.R. Naik, Proprietor of M/s. Weldon Pharmaceuticals (Accused No.1), Mr. M.J. Brahmabhatt (Accused No.8), Mrs. Ranikumar (Accused No.9) and M/s. Healer (India) Laboratories (Accused No.10) on the above charges.
3. By judgment dated 26.4.2001, appended at Exhibit 'A' page No.23, Trial Court convicted Accused No.
Timely analysis and proper handling of drug samples are crucial; delays and procedural violations invalidate prosecution cases.
Seizure of sub-standard quality of drug – When report of Government Analyst itself is shrouded in serious suspicion and it is not sure as to whether report of Government Analyst relates to sample lif....
The judgment establishes that the failure of the prosecution to adhere to statutory requirements, particularly regarding the right to contest the Government Analyst's report, can lead to the quashing....
The prosecution of drug quality violations is unsustainable when testing delays invalidate the accused's rights to challenge the results, highlighting the need for timely compliance under the Drugs a....
Prosecution quashed for delay in sample testing beyond 60 days without extension under Rule 45 and failure to send sample to manufacturer under Section 23(4)(iii), depriving re-analysis right post sh....
Delay in analysis deprived accused of rights under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, justifying quashing of proceedings.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the rights of the accused under sections 25(3) and 25(4) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 must be upheld, and any violation of these right....
The expiry of a drug sample before testing negates the prosecution's case, impacting the accused's right to challenge the evidence.
Quash of Criminal proceedings - once it is shown that the right of accused to adduce evidence in controversion of the Government Analyst’s report is defeated due to acts and omission of the Drugs Ins....
Drugs and Cosmetics - Criminal Proceedings quashed - Statutory right of petitioner for retesting drugs in question under sections 25(3) and 25(4) of Act has been violated by respondent and learned tr....
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
