Back
SANJAY DHAR
Neena Gupta – Appellant
Versus
UT of Ladakh – Respondent
JUDGMENT
By this common judgment, the afore-titled two petitions filed under Section 482 of the Cr. P. C, are proposed to be disposed of.
2. Through the medium of both these petitions, the petitioners have challenged the complaint filed by the respondent against them alleging commission of offences under Section 18(a)(i) read with Section 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, which is stated to be pending before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kargil.
3. A perusal of the record reveals that the respondent Drugs Inspector, Kargil, has lodged the impugned complaint against the petitioners and co-accused alleging that sample of the drug Tablet Uspas Forte collected from the shop of accused Nissar Ali was found to be not of standard quality. After completion of the necessary formalities and investigation, the Drugs Inspector lodged the impugned complaint against said Nissar Ali as well as against other accused in their capacity as distributors, dealers and manufacturers. Petitioner Arun Gupta, as per the complaint, is the competent person of M/S Janta Medical Hall, Pharmaceutical Distributor, Jammu and petitioner Neena Gupta is stated to be the proprietor-cum-Competen
Provisions of Section 34 of Drugs and Cosmetics Act are also applicable to a partnership firm.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of proving proper storage conditions to avoid liability for contravention of Section 18 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.
Point of Law - In fact, there is no bar to sending a sample of drug for test/analysis directly to CDL without first sending to the Government Analyst. This is clear from the bare language of the Sect....
Under Section 34 Drugs and Cosmetics Act, company offence liability presumes against nominated responsible person and firm; other officers require specific role allegations, not mere designations.
Distributors of drugs are not liable for quality issues if they prove acquisition from a licensed manufacturer and proper storage, as per Section 19(3) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.
Directors of a company not involved in drug manufacturing cannot be held liable under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act absent specific evidence of their responsibility for the conduct of business.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that specific and clear averments regarding the role and responsibilities of the accused in the commission of the offence are necessary to establis....
Preliminary inquiry under S.202 of the CrPC is mandatory before issuing process against accused residing beyond territorial jurisdiction.
Trial court cannot issue process without preliminary inquiry under Section 202 of the CrPC when the accused resides outside jurisdiction. Non-compliance renders proceedings illegitimate.
Cognizance of offences under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act requires adherence to procedural mandates, especially under Section 202 of Cr. P. C when the accused is beyond jurisdiction.
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
