SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 442

HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J
J.VINODH – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU REPRESENTED BY – Respondent


ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the complaint in S.C. No. 130 of 2019 on the file of I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur.

2. Heard both sides.

3. The petitioner is ranked as A2 in the complaint in S.C.No.130 of

2019 filed under Sec.36 AB of the Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940 for contravention of Sec.18(a)(i) read with Sec. 17B(c), 17B(d), 18(b) and Sec.18-A of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The learned counsel for petitioner would submit that as a retailer, the petitioner borrowed the alleged drugs from A3, who is the manufacturer of drugs and he sold the same to the distributor/A1. To purchase those drugs, he is having valid license and as a retailer, he sold the drugs to A3, except that, he is not intended to sell the alleged non-standard quality drugs, but he was falsely implicated in this case by the prosecution. Therefore, he prayed to quash the complaint filed against the petitioner. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel relied on the order passed by this Court against A1 in Crl. O.P. No. 412 of 2020, dated 23.09.2020. He has also relied another order passed by this court in Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 18629 of 2022, dated 30.06

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top