Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
SUSHIL M.GHODESWAR
Mukut Bihari Goyal – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra. Through Drug Inspector, Office of Assistant Commissioner – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge against order of case commitment. (Para 3 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. arguments for and against the commitment order. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 3. court analysis of statutory provisions. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. jurisdiction considerations post-amendment. (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. court's decision to quash commitment order. (Para 16 , 17) |
JUDGMENT :
SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.
1. Heard.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of the parties.
3. The petitioners are challenging the order dated 16.10.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Majalgaon, District Beed, on applications below exhibits 1 and 16 in RCC No.41/2005 thereby, allowing the applications filed by the respondent/ prosecution and committing the case to the Sessions Court.
4. While issuing notice to the respondent on 22.01.2020, this Court has granted interim relief thereby implementation of the impugned order has been stayed.
5. According to the petitioners, they are having valid license issued by the Drugs Controller, Jaipur, Rajasthan for manufacturing the drug Lupizyme 200 ml. On 04.03.2005, the respondent filed the complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Majal
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 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 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....
Unauthorised sale of drugs and violation of license conditions – Section 468 of Cr.P.C. is not applicable.
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....
Magistrate in summons cases cannot discharge accused or recall summons order post-issuance; remedy is under Section 482 CrPC, not discharge application.
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
