AI Overview...
Summary of Justice Kainthla's Judgement on Drugs and Cosmetics Act
-
Definition of Spurious Drugs
The judgement clarifies that under Section 17-B of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, a spurious drug is specifically defined, emphasizing the importance of this classification in legal proceedings Brijesh Kumar VS State of Himachal Pradesh - Himachal Pradesh. -
Legal Provisions and Procedural Aspects
The judgement discusses key sections such as Sections 18, 21, 25(4), 27(d), 34, and 16, highlighting the procedural requirements for filing complaints, sample testing, and the powers of courts to quash complaints or proceedings under certain circumstances Ashish Dhamija VS State of H. P. - Himachal Pradesh, Hetero Labs Limited VS Union of India through Drug Inspector - Himachal Pradesh, VADSP Pharmaceuticals vs Union of India - Himachal Pradesh. -
Quashing of Complaints
The court has exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash complaints in cases where procedural lapses occurred, such as expiry of drug samples before testing or failure to produce purchase and sale records, ensuring that justice is not miscarried due to technicalities Hetero Labs Limited VS Union of India through Drug Inspector - Himachal Pradesh, Unital Formulation vs Union of India - Himachal Pradesh. -
Manufacture and Sale of Spurious/Substandard Drugs
The judgement addresses cases involving manufacturing spurious drugs, emphasizing the importance of proper documentation, licenses, and compliance with the Act. It also notes that manufacturing without proper authorization or forging licenses constitutes serious offences Atul Kumar Gupta vs State of H.P. - Himachal Pradesh. -
Possession of Cough Syrup and NDPS Act
The judgement clarifies that possession of cough syrup containing Codeine Phosphate falls under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act or the NDPS Act, depending on the context, and that legal protections such as bail are granted considering the circumstances Nasir Husain VS State of H. P. - Himachal Pradesh. -
Court’s Discretion and Procedural Safeguards
The court underscores the importance of judicial discretion, especially in cases where procedural irregularities or delays in filing complaints occur, and reiterates that Magistrates should act judiciously without overreach Neptune Life Science (P) Ltd. vs Union of India - Himachal Pradesh. -
Superseding Laboratory Reports
In cases where the Central Drugs Laboratory’s report is superseded by other evidence, the court considers this in its decision-making, ensuring that investigations are based on the most reliable data Hetero Labs Limited VS Union of India through Drug Inspector - Himachal Pradesh.
Analysis and Conclusion
Justice Rakesh Kainthla’s judgement provides a comprehensive interpretation of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, emphasizing the importance of procedural adherence, proper documentation, and the legal definitions of offences such as manufacturing spurious drugs. The judgements highlight the judiciary’s cautious approach in quashing complaints where technicalities or procedural lapses are involved, balancing enforcement with fairness. The judgements also clarify the scope of the Act concerning possession and manufacturing of drugs, including those containing controlled substances like Codeine, and reinforce the courts’ discretionary powers to prevent miscarriage of justice.
References:
- Brijesh Kumar VS State of Himachal Pradesh - Himachal Pradesh, Ashish Dhamija VS State of H. P. - Himachal Pradesh, Hetero Labs Limited VS Union of India through Drug Inspector - Himachal Pradesh, Suresh Sood VS State of Himachal Pradesh (Drugs Inspector) - Himachal Pradesh, Nasir Husain VS State of H. P. - Himachal Pradesh, Unital Formulation vs Union of India - Himachal Pradesh, Neptune Life Science (P) Ltd. vs Union of India - Himachal Pradesh, Atul Kumar Gupta vs State of H.P. - Himachal Pradesh, M/s Neptune Life Sciences (P) Ltd. vs Union of India - Himachal Pradesh, VADSP Pharmaceuticals vs Union of India - Himachal Pradesh
Search Results for "Justice Kaintla Judgement on Drugs and Cosmetics Act"
2023 0 Supreme(HP) 448 • India - Himachal Pradesh
RAKESH KAINTHLA
Drugs and Cosmetics Act. ... Drugs and Cosmetics Act. ... under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. ... and Cosmetics Act, 1940. ... JUDGMENT : Rakesh Kainthla, J. ... The term ‘Spurious Drug’ has been defined in Chapter 4 in Section 17(B) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act as under: “17-B. Spurious drugs#HL_E....
2024 0 Supreme(HP) 260 • India - Himachal Pradesh
RAKESH KAINTHLA
(A) Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 - Section 27(d) and Section 34 - Quashing of complaint against partners of a firm - Complaint against ... Jurisprudence - Inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC - Power exercised sparingly and only to prevent abuse of process or miscarriage of justice ... Section 34 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act reads as under:- 34. ... State of J&K (CRMC No. 29/2017 decided on 06.09.2019) in the context of Section 34 of the Drugs ....
2024 0 Supreme(HP) 304 • India - Himachal Pradesh
RAKESH KAINTHLA
per Section 25(4) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, and it superseded the report of the Government Analyst. ... Drugs and Cosmetics Act - Quashing of Complaint - Section 25(4) Fact of the Case: ... Finding of the Court: The report of the Central Drugs Laboratory, Kolkata superseded ... JUDGMENT : Rakesh Kainthla, J. ... The petitioners filed an application under Section 25(4) of the Drugs and Cosmetics#HL_....
2024 0 Supreme(HP) 298 • India - Himachal Pradesh
RAKESH KAINTHLA
Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and Rules framed thereunder. ... as the accused failed to produce purchase and sale records of the drugs as required under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and ... Drugs and Cosmetics Act - Prosecution Sanction - Sections 18A, 27(d), 28, 32, 33M - The court quashed the ... IV of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. ... JUDG....
2024 0 Supreme(HP) 117 • India - Himachal Pradesh
RAKESH KAINTHLA
and Cosmetics Act to the possession of such cough syrup. ... and Cosmetics Act, and he should be entitled to bail as he had been in custody since September 2023 and had no criminal antecedent ... The judgment emphasized that the possession of cough syrup containing Codeine Phosphate falls within the purview of the NDPS Act ... and Cosmetics Act or under the provisions of the NDPS Act. ... First, we note that Section 80 of the NDPS #....
2025 0 Supreme(HP) 656 • India - IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, J
(A) Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 - Sections 18(a)(i), 18(a)(vi), 18(b), 18(c), 21, 25(4) and 32 - Criminal complaint for substandard ... drug - The complaint was quashed due to the expiry of the drug sample before testing by the Central Drugs Laboratory, impacting ... Paras 12, 16) ... ... Facts of the case: ... The petitioners challenged a complaint filed by the Drugs ... JUDGMENT : Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. Admittedly, the....
2025 0 Supreme(HP) 322 • India - IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, J
(A) Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 - Sections 18(a)(i), 16, 27(d), 21, 23, 25, 34 - Complaint filed against manufacturer for ... 12, 14) ... ... (B) Judicial Discretion - The court reiterated that the Magistrate must not act ... The Drugs Inspector is engaged in multiple activities and could not file the complaint within time. The sample was properly sent as per Rule 57 of the Drugs & Cosmetics Rules, read with Section 23 of the Drugs & Cosm....
2025 0 Supreme(HP) 331 • India - IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, J
(A) Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 - Sections 17-B and 18(c) - Charges framed against accused for manufacturing spurious drugs ... /s Himalayan Laboratories, with allegations of using forged licenses and failing to provide documentation when requested by the Drugs ... Paras 9, 10) ... ... Facts of the case: ... The petitioner was accused of manufacturing spurious drugs ... Cosmetics Act 1940. ... JUDGMENT : Section 18 of the #HL_ST....
2025 Supreme(Online)(HP) 6119 • India - IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J
Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and accordingly, accused persons be summoned for 07.05.2022.” 7. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in JM Laboratories v. ... & ors. ...Petitioners Versus Union of India ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. Section 34 of the Drugs Act. No averment was made regarding the vicarious liability of petitioners Nos. 2 and 3. An application was filed for sending the sample ....
2025 0 Supreme(HP) 279 • India - IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KAINTHLA
and Cosmetics Act. ... (A) Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 - Sections 16, 18(a)(i), 18(a)(vi), 27(d), and 34 - Quashing of complaint - Petitioners sought ... to quash a complaint for manufacturing substandard drugs - The complaint alleged that the drug did not meet quality standards as ... Section 34 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act reads as under:- 34. ... It is apparent from the bare perusal of the Section that a Company is primarily ....
Filter by Legal Phrase
