IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR
RAJNESH OSWAL
Sanjay Chibber – Appellant
Versus
UT of Ladakh through Drugs Inspector Kargil – Respondent
ORDER :
1. The proceedings of the complaint titled as “State through Drugs Inspector District Kargil Vs. Ms. Sunita Dhawan and Ors.” under Section 18(a)(i) read with 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the order of issuance of process dated 25.03.2019 passed by the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kargil (for short ‘the trial court’) have been impugned by the petitioner on the ground that the respondent has not arrayed the company ‘M/s Stride Health Care Pvt. Ltd’ as an accused in the complaint and in terms of mandate of Section 19(3) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, the proceedings against the petitioner cannot be continued in view of the admission made by the respondent in the complaint that the Drug in question was acquired from a license manufacturer/distributor and dealer by the company i.e. M/s Stride Health Care Pvt. Ltd and there is no allegation in the complaint that the petitioner had tampered with the seal of packed drug and that the same is also substantiated by the report of Government analyst. It is also urged by the petitioner that in a petition filed by accused no. 3 and 4 in the complaint, the coordinate Bench of this court has quashed the
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.
The court emphasized the seriousness of the allegations and directed the trial court to conclude the trial within 6 months, despite acknowledging the delay in the proceedings.
A prima facie case may arise from additional documents, supporting liability despite insufficient initial allegations.
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....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the exemption of the drugs manufactured by the petitioner from the provisions of Chapter IV of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 under Schedule ....
Provisions of Section 34 of Drugs and Cosmetics Act are also applicable to a partnership firm.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of proving proper storage conditions to avoid liability for contravention of Section 18 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.
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.
A Magistrate must conduct a preliminary enquiry under Section 202(1) of Cr. P.C before issuing process against an accused residing outside jurisdiction, even if cognizance can be taken for offences t....
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.