Back
HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Suresh Jindal – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J.
1. The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 06.11.2023 passed by the Judge, Special Court, Rupnagar vide which charges have been framed against the petitioners under Sections 17A, 18 (a) (i), 27 (b) (i) & 27 (c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1940).
2. In brief, facts are that petitioner No.2 Firm namely Ms Cosway Pharmaceuticals is engaged in the business of manufacturing of all kinds of tablets, capsules, oral syrups, ointments and other pharmaceutical products at Plot No.11-C, Industrial Area, Tahliwal, Tehsil Haroli, District Una (HP) as well as in sale distribution of drugs specified in Schedule C & C (i) in Forms 25 & 28 under Licence No.N-MB15157 & N-MB15158 dated 03.03.2017 issued by the Assistant Drugs Controller-cum-Drugs Licensing Authority. Petitioner No.1 is one of the partners of the said firm. On 06.03.2020, petitioner No.2-Firm purchased raw material for manufacturing Cosway Hand Sanitizer from Ms Mahaveer Agencies, Nalagarh along with testing report analysis certificate dated 19.02.2020. On 16.03.2020, the abovesaid produc
The evaluation at the stage of framing of charge is to test the existence of a prima facie case, and the court cannot delve into the probative value of the material on record.
The right of the petitioner to adduce evidence under sub sections 3 and 4 of section 25 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act was crucial in influencing the court's decision to quash the entire criminal pro....
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....
Drugs and Cosmetics - Criminal Proceedings quashed - Statutory right of petitioner for retesting drugs in question under sections 25(3) and 25(4) of Act has been violated by respondent and learned tr....
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....
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 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....
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
