Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
N.J.J AMADAR
C.B.Healthcare – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition challenges drugs act prosecution initiation. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. parties dispute procedural delays compliance. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. court prioritizes drugs act procedural analysis. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. rule 45 mandates 60-day sample testing. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. delayed testing invalidates analyst report. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 6. section 23 requires sample to manufacturer. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 7. accused must notify to challenge report. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 8. delay defeats retesting right abuse. (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38) |
| 9. no direct sessions court cognizance. (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46) |
| 10. vicarious liability needs specific averments. (Para 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52) |
| 11. prosecution quashed as process abuse. (Para 53 , 54) |
JUDGMENT :
N.J.J AMADAR, J.
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, and, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, heard finally.
2. By this Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Digitally signed by Petitioners seek to quash and set aside criminal prosecution initiated against Date: 2026.03.24 21:29:55 +0530 the Petitioners in Spe
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....
The expiry of a drug sample before testing negates the prosecution's case, impacting the accused's right to challenge the evidence.
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....
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 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....
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
