Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
ARVIND KUMAR VERMA
Harishchandra Healthcare Private Limited, Through Its One of The Director Shri Rahul Arya, S/o. Mahipal Arya – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, Through Dr. Vijay Sahu – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the case. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. petitioner's arguments on jurisdictional issues. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 8 , 10 , 14 , 15) |
| 3. court's examination of jurisdictional authority. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 30 , 32) |
| 4. ratio relating to jurisdictional provisions. (Para 21 , 27 , 29 , 31) |
| 5. conclusion quashing proceedings and remand. (Para 33) |
Order :
ARVIND KUMAR VERMA, J.
With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.
The present petition challenges the order dated 01.12.2022 passed by the Sessions Judge, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (CG) whereby cognizance was taken against the petitioner under Sections 33 EE and 33KA read with Section 33(1)(1)(ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (“the Act”) and the trial has been directed to proceed before the Special Sessions Court.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
2. The petitioner is a private limited company duly incorporated under the Companies Act, 2013 and engaged solely as a distributor of Ayurvedic medicines and not the manufacturer. The case arises from the sampling of Ayurveda medicines and not the manufacturer. The case arises from the sampling of Ayurvedic medicine “Vasavaleha” collected on 07.
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....
Prohibition of manufacture and sale of certain drugs and cosmetics - Quashment of complaint - Very fact of selling this drug as one of ingredients in Ozomen capsule and not displaying name in prescri....
Sildenafil Citrate is an allopathic drug and it cannot be used by anybody else unless a person who holds licence for it.
Unauthorised sale of drugs and violation of license conditions – Section 468 of Cr.P.C. is not applicable.
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 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.
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
