Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
Jackson Laboratory Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. spurious provon spas seized from unlicensed premises. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. procedural lapses in sampling and jurisdiction claimed. (Para 3 , 5) |
| 3. petitioners inconsistently deny manufacturing yet seek sample. (Para 6) |
| 4. quashing warranted only for bhajan lal categories. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 5. magistrate cognizance precedes sessions court trial. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 6. manufacturers can challenge analyst report alternatively. (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 7. spurious drugs offence needs no chemical analysis. (Para 16) |
| 8. no mandatory time frame for sample testing. (Para 17 , 18) |
| 9. petition dismissed without prejudice to trial merits. (Para 19 , 20) |
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The present petition has been filed for quashing of the complaint No. 01/14.12.2024, Filing No.1903/2024, dated 14.12.2024, under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, titled State of H.P. Vs. M/s Jackson Laboratory Private Limited and others, and consequential proceedings arising out of the same. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)
2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the Drugs Inspector (complainan
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
