Back
JUDGMENT :
Sanjay Dhar, J.
1. Through the medium of present judgment, the afore- titled two petitions arising out of the same complaint filed by the respondent against the petitioners and co-accused before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Anantnag, are proposed to be disposed of.
2. The petitioners, who happen to be the accused in the impugned complaint, have challenged the complaint filed by the respondent against them before the trial Magistrate. By virtue of the impugned complaint, prosecution for offences under Section 18(a)(1) read with Section 27(d), Section 18A read with Section 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act has been launched against the petitioners and the co-accused. Challenge has also been thrown by the petitioners to the order passed by the learned trial Magistrate whereby cognizance of offences has been taken and the process has been issued against the petitioners.
3. It appears that the respondent Drug Control Officer, Anantnag, filed a complaint against the petitioners as also against their Directors and three more accused persons before the trial Magistrate. As per contents of the complaint, the respondent visited the premises of accused M/S Three Star Medical
Cognizance of offences under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act requires adherence to procedural mandates, especially under Section 202 of Cr. P. C when the accused is beyond jurisdiction.
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....
Quash of Criminal proceedings - once it is shown that the right of accused to adduce evidence in controversion of the Government Analyst’s report is defeated due to acts and omission of the Drugs Ins....
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....
Point of law: Quash of Criminal proceedings –Rejected - Disputed question of facts to be raised before trial court -
Non-compliance with statutory provisions and resignation of the accused from the company absolved him of liability, leading to the quashing of the proceedings.
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....
The expiry of a drug sample before testing negates the prosecution's case, impacting the accused's right to challenge the evidence.
The judgment established the principle that a company can be prosecuted without impleading its Directors or persons responsible for conducting its business, and can be sentenced to a fine for offence....
Directors of a company not involved in drug manufacturing cannot be held liable under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act absent specific evidence of their responsibility for the conduct of business.
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
