Home  |  News  |  Sitemap  |  Contact Us  |  Login
Advertise With Us
Latest Notification
  • banner1
  • banner2
  • banner3
  • banner4
  • banner5
  • banner6
  • banner7
banner11 banner22 banner33 banner44 banner45 banner46 banner47

 Case Digest


Back
Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940
Section 17-B, (d), (e), 18 (i) (c)—IPC , 1860—Section 468—MCOCA, 1999—Section 3 (i) (ii)—conviction and sentence for commission of the offences under—appeal against
Section 17-B, (d), (e), 18 (i) (c)—IPC , 1860—Section 468—MCOCA, 1999—Section 3 (i) (ii)—conviction and sentence for commission of the offences under—appeal against
Prosecution investigated the case properly - the evidence of PW-18 established beyond doubt that the tablets and the material which was seized from the car, which was being driven by the appellant, was spurious/duplicate/sub-standard—PW 7, PW 9 and PW 17 who are associated with Picaso Health Care medicines also have established that the drugs and the tablets which were seized from the appellant and other accused was spurious and an attempt was made by the appellant to pass off these goods by showing as if they are manufactured by Picaso Health Care—the evidence of PW-15 & 16 clearly established that the prosecution investigated the case properly—conviction of the appellant confirmed, while the quantum of sentence of the appellant reduced to the period already undergone—appeal partly allowed.
Siddhu @ Siddharth Ramesh Janmejay vs. The State of Maharashtra, Bombay High Court, 2012 (1) Drugs Cases (DC) 10

Back


» Home
» Latest Notification
» New Drugs
» Import of Drugs
» Drug Prices
» Legislations
» Applications Forms
» Quackwatch
» Forms & Fees
» Licence Conditions
» Schedules
» Health, Pharma. Policies & Reports
» Ayurvedic
» Govt. Bodies
» Information Centre
» Directory
» Alert
» Regulatory News
» Research News
» News in Hindi
» Login
» Contact Us

Copyright © DrugsControl.org - Jaipur, INDIA. All Rights Reserved   |   Disclaimer   |   Sitemap

Site last updated: December 30, 1899 at