Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
FARJAND ALI
Ganesh Narayan Nayak S/o Narayan Vaikunth Nayak – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp – Respondent
ORDER :
FARJAND ALI, J.
1. These criminal miscellaneous petitions under Section 482 read with Section 483 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), have been filed by the respective petitioners seeking quashing of Complaint No. 158/2017 dated 06.02.2017, titled State of Rajasthan through Drug Control Officer vs. M/s Life Line Fluid and Drug Store, Rajsamand and Others, along with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajsamand, Rajasthan, on the ground that the same is illegal and amounts to an abuse of the process of law.
2. Given the similar nature of allegations, legal issues, and prayers involved in all the petitions, they are being decided together through this consolidated order.
3. The origin of the dispute dates back to an inspection conducted on 30.11.2012 by the Drugs Control Officer (respondent No. 2) at the premises of M/s Life Line Fluid and Drug Store, Rajsamand. During the said inspection, a sample of the drug “Tab. Glimp-2” (Batch No. BD-11374), manufactured by M/s Skymap Pharmaceuticals, was collected for analysis. The Government Analyst, Jaipur, vide report dated 15.01.2013, declared the sample as
The prosecution was quashed due to procedural lapses, lack of vicarious liability for non-executive directors, and exceeding the statutory limitation period, constituting an abuse of the process of l....
The court established that former directors cannot be held vicariously liable for offences committed after their tenure, and highlighted multiple procedural lapses that rendered the prosecution unsus....
Prosecution under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act was quashed due to procedural delays, lack of evidence, and misapplication of statutory provisions.
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.
The court ruled that mandatory compliance with the statutory provisions in drug testing processes is essential; failure to do so invalidates prosecution.
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.
Criminal liability for partners requires specific allegations of responsibility; mere designation is insufficient, and complaints may be barred by limitation.
The judgment establishes that a valuable right to re-test a drug sample, as provided under Section 25(4) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, cannot be denied without due process, and failure to comply wi....
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
