Back
SHAILENDRA SINGH
Om Surgical Industries – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
Shailendra Singh, J.—Heard Mr. D.K. Sinha, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, learned APP appearing for the State.
The present application has been filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short ‘Cr.P.C.’) for quashing the order dated 16.08.2014, so far as it relates to the petitioners, whereby and whereunder the cognizance under sections and Rules 96(ii), 18(a)(i) and 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (in short ‘Drugs Act 1940’) & Rules 1945 Amendment, 2008 (in short ‘Drugs Rules 1945’) has been taken against the petitioners by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gaya in connection with G.O. Case No. 2 of 2014.
2. Mr. D.K. Sinha, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioner No. 1 is a registered company and petitioner No. 2 is one of the partners of Ms. Om Surgical Industries. In December 2010, the State Health Society, Bihar, Patna invited tenders for supplying of drugs and medicines to the different medical institutions of the State of Bihar and the petitioners’ company’s tender was finally considered in respect to supply of ABSORBENT COTTON WOOL I.P
The evaluation at the stage of framing of charge is to test the existence of a prima facie case, and the court cannot delve into the probative value of the material on record.
Directors are liable under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act for the conduct of the company's business, and summoning orders require only a prima facie case without extensive procedural scrutiny.
At the stage of framing charges, the court should only consider the allegations made in the complaint and the supporting documents. The court should not delve into the evidence or conduct a mini-tria....
Proceedings under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act can be quashed if the company involved is not named as an accused and procedural compliance is not met.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the prosecution for manufacturing drugs not of standard quality may not be launched if the product is free from any foreign matter and the def....
The court's decision emphasized the importance of considering the actual quality of the product, the timing of the launch of prosecution, and the availability of administrative measures for minor def....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the exemption of the drugs manufactured by the petitioner from the provisions of Chapter IV of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 under Schedule ....
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
