IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J
M/s.Hetero Drug Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
State represented by S.R.Arumugam Drug Inspector Salem – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the complaint regarding misbranding. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. arguments for quash based on improper labelling guidelines. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. court observations on procedural validity and compliance. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
C O M M O N O R D E R
These Criminal Original Petitions are filed to quash the private complaint filed by the Drugs Inspector, Salem I Range, against the petitioners for violation under Section 18 (a)(i) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 , r/w. Section 17 (b) Rule 96(1) of the Drugs Rules, 1945 and (c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act r/w. Rules 65(5)(1) and 65(5)(3) of the Drugs Rules, punishable under (d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.
2.The crux of the complaint is as follows :
2.1.On 20.12.2004, the Drugs Inspector, inspected the premises of M/s.Venkatavinayaga Distributors, situated at No.3/33, Chinneri Vayalkadu, Pallapatty, Salem – 9 and found that the following drugs were stocked for sale :
Enthusia 50 mg – B.No.01014H - 777x4s Enthusia 50 mg – B.No.03063H - 50x4s The said drugs were packed as 10 x 4s and in the sales bills also, it was mentioned as packing 10 x 4s. In the outer carton's label, there were the
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.