Back
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
SANJEEV KUMAR
August Remedies Village-Ogli – Appellant
Versus
State of Jammu and Kashmir, Through Deputy Controller – Respondent
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV KUMAR, J.
1. The petitioner invokes inherent criminal jurisdiction vested in this Court under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, which was then in force and now repealed, and seeks to challenge proceedings in complaint titled State through Drug Inspector v. Surjit Singh and others, pending trial before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu [“the trial Court"].
2. Before we advert to the grounds of challenge urged by Mr. Sachin Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, we deem it appropriate to notice, briefly, few facts, as are germane to the disposal of this petition. The respondent No.2, in his capacity as Drug Inspector appointed under Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 [“the Act”] and duly empowered by the Government in terms of SRO 288 dated 28.07.1989, lifted samples of Drug “Tab CEFAM-250” (Batch No.349, Mfd date- 09/2009, Exp. Date-08/11, on 22.02.2010 from the premises of M/s Shiv Shakti Medicos, situated at Sure Chak, Phallan Mandal, Jammu.
3. The sample was picked up during random/routine inspection carried out by respondent No.2. The drug was found to have been manufactured by the petitioner-August Remedies, Ogli Nahan Road,
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 right of a manufacturer to adduce evidence in controversion of the report of the Government Analyst is not violated if the sample has already been tested by the Central Drugs Laboratory.
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....
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....
The expiry of a drug sample before testing negates the prosecution's case, impacting the accused's right to challenge the evidence.
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
