Back
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
Ram Dahin Sao – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
1. This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal prosecution against the petitioners in C.G. Case No. 3 of 2013, including the order taking cognizance dated 11.07.2013, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Palamau at Daltonganj.
2. The complaint case has been filed alleging therein that on 2.7.2013 O.P.No. 3 filed a complaint petition being C.G. No. 3 of 2013 in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau at Daltonganj against the company namely Aditya Birla Chemicals (India) Limited and petitioner that is factory manager namely Ram Dahin Sao the accused no. 1 alleging therein that there is a plant of the said accused no. 2 at Rehla Garhwa. It is further alleged that an information has been received by the said opposite party no. 3 that in the said plant bleaching powder which is a drug is being manufactured, sold and distributed. It has been further alleged by the O.P.No. 3 that such bleaching powder was being packed in 25 kg jute bag and 25 kg drum of tin which was labelled as stabilized bleaching power. It has been further alleged that he wrote a letter to the accused no. 2 that is M/s Aditya Bi
Manufacturing bleaching powder not intended for medicinal use is exempt from licensing under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.
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 ....
Vicarious liability of directors in criminal cases and the requirement for proper recording of materials for taking cognizance under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.
(1) For quashing of a criminal complaint, Court, when it exercises its power under Section 482, Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether or not allegations in complaint disclose commission of a cognizab....
Failure to furnish information under Drugs and Cosmetics Act within stipulated time constitutes offence under Section 28A r/w 18B, even post-subsequent compliance. License violation and commercial co....
Non-compliance with inspection procedures under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 is not fatal for prosecution in cases involving allegations of spurious drugs.
Right of appellant to have sample analysed in Central Laboratory is a valuable right.
The complaint under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act was filed beyond the three-year limitation period, violating the petitioners' right to re-examine the drug, leading to quashing of the proceedings.
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
