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

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
MANAGING DIRECTOROPERATIONS – Appellant
Versus
STATE TH.DRUG INSPECTOR,SGR.AND ORS – Respondent
CRTA 39/2013



Advocates:
['SUNIL SETHI', 'SR ADV', '', 'NAVYUG SETHI', 'J A HAMAL', '', 'AMIT GUPTA', 'AAG', 'P N RAINA', 'SR ADV', 'SHAFIQ A WANI', 'RAMAN SHARMA']

Page 1

CRTA no.46/2018

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH

AT JAMMU

….

CRTA no.39/2013

CrlM no.1603/2019

IA no.03/2014; 37/2013

CrlM no.1354/2021

Reserved on: 01.06.2022

Pronounced on: 13.07.2022

Managing Director, Operations

……...Petitioner (s)

Through: Mr Sunil Sethi, Senior Advocate

with Mr Navyug Sethi, Advocate

Versus

State of Jammu & Kashmir and others

……...Respondent(s)

Through: Ms Chetna Manhas, Assisting

Counsel vice Mr Amit Gupta, AAG for

respondent no.1

Mr Raman Sharma, AAG for respondent no.2

Mr P.N.Raina, Senior Advocate with

Mr J. A. Hamal, Advocate for respondents 3 to

5

Mr Shafiq A Wani, Advocate for respondents 6&7

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

1. Transfer of Complaint, bearing File no.01/A, titled as State through

Drug Inspector v. Akhil Gadoo and others, from the court of Additional

District & Sessions Judge (TADA/POTA) Srinagar, designated Special

Court under Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 (for brevity <court below=)

to the court of Special Judge (Anti-Corruption Cases), Jammu, is

implored for in the application in hand.

2. The case summarized by the applicant is that applicant is duly

registered global pharmaceutical company operating since 1969, and

Page 2

CRTA no.46/2018

manufacturing various drugs. It is being maintained that applicant came

to know through media reports that certain samples of drugs lifted from

government hospitals had been declared as <Not of Standard Quality=

by the Government Analyst of the Drugs Laboratory under the Drugs

& Food Control Organisation, which included the drug, named as

Maximizin 625 (Amoxicillin Trihydrate and Potassium Clavunate)

Batch no.PBT 1583, allegedly manufactured by applicant-company and

supplied by M/s Lifeline Pharmaco Surgicals. It is being claimed by

applicant that he enquired and found that M/s Lifeline Pharmaco

Surgicals proforma respondent herein, has used forged, fabricated and

tampered authorisation certificate/reports of applicant-company, to

avail the tender for supply of the aforesaid drugs to government

hospitals and that in this regard applicant-company also issued a

clarification that applicant has not authorised any party directly or

indirectly to supply the above drug to the hospitals in J&K.

It is being further averred that in view of seriousness of the

matter, the Government constituted a three members Committee vide

Order no. 239-HME of 2013 dated 4th April 2013, which reported that

M/s Lifeline Pharmaco Surgical used forged, fabricated and tampered

authorisation certificate/reports of applicant-company and that in

pursuance of communication no.PS/CS/ H&ME/76/2013 dated 20th

April 2013, an FIR no.10/2013 came to be registered in police station

Crime Branch Jammu for commission of offences punishable under

Sections 274, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B RPC read with Section

5(2) P. C. Act, Section 27 of Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940.

Page 3

CRTA no.46/2018

Notwithstanding this fact, it is next stated by applicant, the Drugs

Departments without waiting for completion of investigation by the

Crime Branch, hastened to file a complaint before the court below,

implicating therein applicant-company as one of the accused in the

complaint with the allegations that applicant has conspired with other

accused persons in manufacture, marketing and distribution of spurious

drugs for commission of offences under Section 17 B, 18 (a) (I) read

with Section 27(a) of Drugs & Cosmetics Act 1940.

It is being further averred that applicant challenged cognisance

order before this Court in a petition under Section 561-A Cr.P.C.

bearing 561-A no.66/2013, in which proceedings against applicant vide

order dated 3rd May 2013 were stayed and the said petition was

subsequently heard along with PIL no.06/2013, which was disposed of

vide order dated 23rd May 2013, asking petitioner to appear before the

court below and a

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 Back to top