Back
DEEPAK GUPTA
Rohini Distributors – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of complaint (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments from petitioners and state (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court analysis of section 19(3) applicability (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. dismissal of petition (Para 14) |
JUDGMENT
Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral)
By way of this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, petitioners have prayed for quashing of complaint No. COMA/30/2020 dated 18.05.2020 titled "State of Haryana through Drugs Control Officer v. Ritesh Chander Jain and others" (Annexure P.14), pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panchkula, along with summoning order dated 18.05.2020 (Annexure P.15).
2. As per complaint, on receiving a letter from OIC Medical Store for Commandant, Command Hospital Western Command Chandimandir, Panchkula, Shri Parveen Kumar, Drug Control Officer, visited the medical store inside the Command Hospital and collected sample of Azzirin injection (Heprine Injection IP 25000 Unit) (Batch No. MCP 19388), manufacturing date 08/18, and expiry date 07/20, manufactured by M/s Health Biotech Ltd., Unit-II, Sandholi, for the purpose of test/ analysis from premises of In-charge Medical Store inside Command Hospital, Panc
Distribution of drugs - Order of ‘issue of process’ - Applicant has produced invoices and certificate of the analyst, wherein, there is warranty that the subject drug obtained is of standard quality ....
Conviction under drug regulation provisions requires proving non-compliance, highlighting the importance of disclosing the manufacturer's details for legal protection.
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.
Distributors of drugs are not liable for quality issues if they prove acquisition from a licensed manufacturer and proper storage, as per Section 19(3) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.
A stockist cannot be held liable for drug quality violations if not impleaded in the prosecution, highlighting the necessity of prosecuting the manufacturer under the relevant legal framework.
Non-compliance with statutory provisions and resignation of the accused from the company absolved him of liability, leading to the quashing of the proceedings.
Sildenafil Citrate is an allopathic drug and it cannot be used by anybody else unless a person who holds licence for it.
Provisions of Section 34 of Drugs and Cosmetics Act are also applicable to a partnership firm.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of proving proper storage conditions to avoid liability for contravention of Section 18 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.
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
