PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
DEEPAK GUPTA
Ved Parkash – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Deepak Gupta, J.
1. The three criminal revisions titled above have arisen out of the same case in the following facts and circumstances.
2. Complaint was filed by State of Haryana through District Drug In-spector under Section 18(a)(i) read with Section 17A, 17B and 18B of The Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 [hereinafter referred as 'the Act'] and Rules made thereunder, against as many as ten accused as named below:
Manufacturer:
1) M/s Burnent Pharma 974 MIE, Bahadurgarh
2) Sh. Surender Kumar Seth son of Inder Sain
3) Sh. H.S. Rathi son of Sh. Sahu Ram
4) Sh. Jai Gopal son of Sh. Luxami Chand
5) Sh. Darshan Arora son of Sh. Des Raj
Dealer/Distributor:
6) M/s Kavita Medico Agencies, Rohtak
7) Sh. Ved Parkash son of Sh. Gian Dev
Retailer:
8) M/s Super Medicos, Charkhi Dadri
9) Sh. Bhupinder Singh son of Sh. Dalip Singh
10) Attar Singh Phogat son of Sh. Bhola Ram Phogat
3.1 As per complaint, on 24.07.2003, Drug Inspector, Bhiwani visited the premises of M/s Super Medicos i.e. accused No.8 along with Medical Officer, General Hospital, Charkhi Dadri, where accused Nos.9 and 10 i.e. proprietor and pharmacist of the said retailer were present. Vials of Diclofenac Sodium Injection 12 x 30m bear
Conviction under drug regulation provisions requires proving non-compliance, highlighting the importance of disclosing the manufacturer's details for legal protection.
Directors are liable under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act for the conduct of the company's business, and summoning orders require only a prima facie case without extensive procedural scrutiny.
At the stage of framing charges, the court should only consider the allegations made in the complaint and the supporting documents. The court should not delve into the evidence or conduct a mini-tria....
Seizure of drugs for violation of legal provisions – A genuine complaint cannot be quashed without trial.
The conviction under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act requires proof of sale or stocking of drugs without a valid license, and procedural compliance in investigations is crucial for upholding such convict....
Sildenafil Citrate is an allopathic drug and it cannot be used by anybody else unless a person who holds licence for it.
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 ....
Compliance with statutory provisions is essential for the validity of prosecution actions; failure to adhere to such requirements can lead to acquittal.
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.
Non-compliance with inspection procedures under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 is not fatal for prosecution in cases involving allegations of spurious drugs.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.