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 17B, 18 and 19
Section 17B, 18 and 19
No prohibition in any of the provisions of the Act that a dealer cannot be prosecuted for sale of spurious drug or drug of below standard quality without manufacturer being made a co-accused - Such a conclusion by the High Court is not borne out from the provisions of the Act - the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in its order totally overlooked the provisions contained in sub-section (1) of section 19 of the Act which denies defence plea to the accused that 'he was ignorant of the nature, substance and quality of the drug or the circumstances of its manufacture'. The only defence available to him as set out in clause (b) of sub-section (3)is that ' he did not know and could not, with reasonable diligence have ascertained, that the drug or cosmetic in any way contravened the provisions of the Act'. This defence plea, if at all available to the accused would be considered in accordance with sub-section (1) read with sub-section (3) of section 19 of the Act only after the prosecution has led its evidence to prove its case.
The State of Andhra Pradesh vs. M/s. Venu Veterniary Division, SUPREME COURT OF INDIA , 2003 Drugs Cases 32

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