Back
G. JAYACHANDRAN
Medybiz Pharma Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Drug Inspector, Teynampet, Chennai – Respondent
ORDER :
G. Jayachandran, J.
[PRAYER:- Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records in C.C.No.1047 of 2022 pending for trial on the file of the Learned IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai and quash the same as against the petitioners.]
The Drug Inspector, T.Nagar Range has filed a complaint under Section 18 (c) r/w Rule 65 (9) (b) of the Drugs and Cosmetic Act 1940 against the petitioners herein and others for selling schedule H-Drugs to registered medical practitioners without obtaining the signed order in writing and for not mentioning the address of the licensee to whom the Drugs were sold and the license number of the purchaser which is an offence punishable under Section 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940.
2. As per the complaint on 15.03.2018, the Drug Inspector inspected the premises of M/s.Medybiz Pharma Pvt Ltd at T.Nagar, Chennai. During the course of inspection, Mr. V. Balaji (A3) was present and he is the competent person appointed by M/s.Medybiz Pharma Pvt Ltd. During the inspection the following drugs which were already sold by M/s.Medybiz Pharma Pvt Ltd were not purchased with purchase invoices and sold w
The prosecution for violations under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act must adhere to statutory limitations and provide adequate notice of charges; failure to do so renders the prosecution invalid.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of adhering to the prescribed limitation period for filing a complaint under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, and the consequen....
Unexplained inordinate delay can be fatal to a prosecution case, and individuals involved in the day-to-day affairs of a company can be held liable for contraventions under the Drugs and Cosmetics Ac....
The petitioner contravened Section 18(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act by stocking and selling drugs without a license. The petitioner is liable under Section 27(b)(ii) of the Act.
Non-compliance with inspection procedures under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 is not fatal for prosecution in cases involving allegations of spurious drugs.
Sildenafil Citrate is an allopathic drug and it cannot be used by anybody else unless a person who holds licence for it.
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.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for specific allegations to establish vicarious liability and the importance of following mandatory provisions before launching prosecutio....
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
