SANJEEV KUMAR
Patel Nishit Vinod Chandra – Appellant
Versus
State of J&K Through Drugs Inspector – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. Both these quashment petitions filed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, are directed against the Cognizance order dated 31st December 2015, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu (hereinafter in short "CJM”) on a complaint filed by respondent through its Drug Inspector, Jammu Zone-I, under Section 18(a)(i) read with Section 27(d) of the Drug & Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred “Act”). The petitioners, who have been summoned to appear before the CJM, have also challenged the complaint filed before the CJM, on which cognizance was taken by the latter on 31st December 2015.
2. The petitioner in CRMC No. 29/2017 is an authorized signatory of a Private Limited Company by the name of Corona Remedies Private Limited (hereinafter "Stockist”), whereas petitioner in CRMC No. 564/2016 is managing partner of the partnership concern by the name of M/s Prosperity 6 Pharmaceuticals, Baddi, District Solan (Himachal Pradesh) (hereinafter referred as to "Manufacturer”). Both the petitioners are arraigned as accused by respondent-complainant, being distributor and manufacturer of the drug, which was found not meeting the prescribed standards by responde
Iridium India Telecom Ltd. v. Motorola Inc.
Sharad Kumar Sanghi v. Sangita Rane
Maksud Saiyed v. State of Gujarat
S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla & Anr.
Aneeta Hada v. Godfather Travels and Tours Pvt. Ltd.
Sunil Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation
Standard Chartered Bank v. Directorate of Enforcement
Director of Public Prosecutions v. Kent and Sussex Contractors Ltd.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.