SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2002 Supreme(Guj) 206

C.K.BUCH
BHARATKUMAR AMRATLAL SHAH – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: A.D.SHAH, B.D.DESAI

C. K. BUCH, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision application has been preferred by the original accused of Criminal Case No. 498 of 1992 instituted on the strength of a complaint filed by the Drug Inspector Mr. RK Prajapati on 15. 6. 1992 for the offences punishable under section 27 and 27 (A) read with section 18 (a) (i), 18 (a) (vi), 18 (c) and sec. 28 and 28 (a) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ( hereinafter referred to as "the Act")

( 2 ) THE criminal complaint by the Drug Inspector for the offences punishable under section 18 (a) (1), 1`8 (b), 18 (a) (vi), 18 (c) as well as Section 27, 28 and 28 (a) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act came to be filed in respect of searches carried out by the Drug Department at different Medical Stores. The samples collected during the searches carried out on 15. 7. 1991 and 16. 7. 1991 of the Drugs were sent for the analysis to Government Analyst, Vadodara. According to the prosecution, the same were found not according to the standard, misbranded, adulterated and spurious, and therefore, the accused were informed about the report of the Analyst and, thereafter the complainant has filed the complaint on 16. 6. 1992 in the Court of Ld. Chief Metropolitan Magis




























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top