Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 25 views

    Managing Director, Operations V. State of Jammu & Kashmir, 2022 SCC Online J&K 556

    Uploaded by

    JINTA JAIMON 19213015
    The document summarizes a court case from the High Court of Himachal Pradesh regarding the framing of charges against a pharmaceutical company under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act of 1940. It provides background on the case, details on the license granted to the company, inspection findings of substandard drugs, the charges filed, and issues considered by the court. The court decided that the framing of charges was not valid based on the arguments presented, and it quashed the order and consequent proceedings to prevent abuse of process and unnecessary harassment of the petitioners.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Managing Director, Operations V. State of Jammu & Kashmir, 2022 SCC Online J&K 556

    Uploaded by

    JINTA JAIMON 19213015
    25 views3 pages
    The document summarizes a court case from the High Court of Himachal Pradesh regarding the framing of charges against a pharmaceutical company under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act of 1940. It provides background on the case, details on the license granted to the company, inspection findings of substandard drugs, the charges filed, and issues considered by the court. The court decided that the framing of charges was not valid based on the arguments presented, and it quashed the order and consequent proceedings to prevent abuse of process and unnecessary harassment of the petitioners.

    Original Title

    New Microsoft Word Document

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document summarizes a court case from the High Court of Himachal Pradesh regarding the framing of charges against a pharmaceutical company under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act of 1940. It provides background on the case, details on the license granted to the company, inspection findings of substandard drugs, the charges filed, and issues considered by the court. The court decided that the framing of charges was not valid based on the arguments presented, and it quashed the order and consequent proceedings to prevent abuse of process and unnecessary harassment of the petitioners.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    25 views3 pages

    Managing Director, Operations V. State of Jammu & Kashmir, 2022 SCC Online J&K 556

    Uploaded by

    JINTA JAIMON 19213015
    The document summarizes a court case from the High Court of Himachal Pradesh regarding the framing of charges against a pharmaceutical company under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act of 1940. It provides background on the case, details on the license granted to the company, inspection findings of substandard drugs, the charges filed, and issues considered by the court. The court decided that the framing of charges was not valid based on the arguments presented, and it quashed the order and consequent proceedings to prevent abuse of process and unnecessary harassment of the petitioners.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    Managing Director, Operations v.

    State of Jammu & Kashmir, 2022 SCC OnLine J&K 556


    Elnova Pharma Village v. State of H.P., 2022 SCC OnLine HP 5091
    PRELIMINARY DETAILS OF THE CASE

    Case No. Criminal Revision No. 37 of 2022

    Jurisdiction High Court of Himachal Pradesh

    Case Decided on 28th September, 2022

    Judges Sandeep Sharma, J.

    Legal Provisions involved Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940

    Case Summary prepared by Jinta Jaimon, Student of B. A L.LB


    Christ University, Delhi NCR

    Pertains to – framing of charge under Section 18(a)(i) read with Section 17-B
    (d) punishable under Sections 27(d) and 27(c) of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act,
    1940 against the petitioner.

    FACTS

     Drug Controller cum Licensing Authority, Shimla, H.P. granted licence


    to the petitioner-firm M/s. Elnova Pharma for manufacturing of the drugs
    specified in Schedule C & C(i) of Form 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics
    Act.
     On the same day, the licensing authority granted license to the Company
    for manufacturing drugs other than specified in Schedule C & C(i). On
    30.1.2012, the Drug Inspector visited the premises of petitioner No. 1-
    M/s. Elnova Pharma and during the course of the inspection drew
    samples of 11 drugs including EP-KOFF capsules, which were in the
    form of Soft Gelatin Capsules and sent the same to CTL Kandaghat for
    chemical analysis. Government Analyst CTL Kandaghat vide declared
    the sample of drug in question as “not of standard quality”.
     The assay test of the drug in question as contained in Central Drug
    Laboratory, Kolkata report, reveals that out of combination of three
    drugs, assay test was found to be performed on two drugs. After receiving
    the report from the Central Drug Laboratory, Kolkata, the State Drug
    Inspector Himachal Pradesh granted sanction for launching prosecution
    against the petitioner-firm under Section 18(a)(i) read with Section 17-
    B(d) of the Act.

    RELEVANT LAWS

     Section 18(a)(i) read with Section 17-B (d) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act
    1940
     Sections 27(d) and 27(c) of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940

    ISSUES
    1. Whether the framing of charges was valid?
    2. Whether the Court is competent enough to quash the order framing
    charge as well as consequent proceedings while exercising power under
    Sections 397 & 482 Cr.P.C?

    DECISION AND REASONING


    The Counsel for petitioner stated that in the case of Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh
    Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460 it was held that framing of a charge is an exercise
    of jurisdiction by the trial Court in terms of Section 228 of the Cr. PC unless the
    accused is discharged under Section 227 Cr.PC. The Hon'ble Apex Court has
    further held that under the Section 227 and 228 Cr. PC, the Court is required to
    consider the ‘record of the case’ and the documents submitted therewith and,
    after hearing the parties, may either discharge the accused or where it appears to
    the Court and in its opinion, there is ground for presuming that the accused has
    committed an offence, it shall proceed to frame the charge.
    The Court should apply the test as to whether the allegations made from the
    record of the case and the documents submitted prima facie establish the
    offence or not. If the allegations are so absurd and inherently improbable that no
    prudent person can ever reach such a conclusion and where the basic ingredients
    of a criminal offence are not satisfied then the Court may interfere.

    The Court has a duty to balance the freedom of a person and the right of the
    complainant or prosecution to investigate and prosecute the offender.
    The Court is certainly required to see whether prima-facie case exists against
    the accused or not.
    To prevent abuse of process of law and to prevent unnecessary harassment to
    the petitioners the Court quashed the order framing charges and consequent
    proceedings against the petitioners.

    You might also like