Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, J
Unital Formulation – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The petitioners have filed the present petition for quashing the criminal complaint and the consequent proceedings pending before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. for the commission of offences punishable underSections 18(a)(i), 18(a)(vi), 18(b), 18(c) read with Rules 76 and 78 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. (Parties shall hereinafter referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before learned Trial Court for convenience).
2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the complainant, Drugs Inspector, filed a complaint against the petitioners/accused before the learned Trial Court asserting that accused no.1 is a manufacturer of Tablets, Capsules, Liquid Orals, Ointments, Liquid Injections (General Section) and Dry Powder Injection (Betalactum). Accused No.2 is the proprietor of accused No.1. A Sample of Uni-Dexa Injection (Dexamethasone Injection IP) was drawn for analysis on 24.2.2020 from Sanjeev Puri, Pharmacist, Main Store (Basement), Civil Hospital, Manimajra. The sample was sent to a Government Analyst, who issued a report stating that the sample was not of standard quality
The expiry of a drug sample before testing negates the prosecution's case, impacting the accused's right to challenge the evidence.
The judgment establishes that the failure of the prosecution to adhere to statutory requirements, particularly regarding the right to contest the Government Analyst's report, can lead to the quashing....
Seizure of sub-standard quality of drug – When report of Government Analyst itself is shrouded in serious suspicion and it is not sure as to whether report of Government Analyst relates to sample lif....
Prosecution quashed for delay in sample testing beyond 60 days without extension under Rule 45 and failure to send sample to manufacturer under Section 23(4)(iii), depriving re-analysis right post sh....
Drugs and Cosmetics - Criminal Proceedings quashed - Statutory right of petitioner for retesting drugs in question under sections 25(3) and 25(4) of Act has been violated by respondent and learned tr....
The prosecution of drug quality violations is unsustainable when testing delays invalidate the accused's rights to challenge the results, highlighting the need for timely compliance under the Drugs a....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the rights of the accused under sections 25(3) and 25(4) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 must be upheld, and any violation of these right....
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
