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 18 (a) (i) (ii), (iia), 27 (a) (i) , 27 (b) and Rule 46 and Rule 65 (18)—Appeal against acquittal
Section 18 (a) (i) (ii), (iia), 27 (a) (i) , 27 (b) and Rule 46 and Rule 65 (18)—Appeal against acquittal
Respondent was unaware and could not with reasonable diligence discover that the drugs in question were misbranded or in any way contravened the provisions of Section 18 of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 - On 5.2.1978, in the presence of the respondent the Drugs Inspector, Sh. V. B. Bajpai, PW-1 collected samples of two drugs known as Analgin Tablets, Batch No. 235 purported to be manufactured by M/s HKG Pharma (Pvt) Ltd and Prednisolone Tablets, Batch No. CP:104 purported to be manufactured by M/s Cyper Pharma from the premises of M/s Fair Deal Chemist. Intimation in Form 17 about the collection of the samples and one sealed portion of each sample was handed over to the respondent—no conclusive evidence as to the samples being the same holding that there has been non-compliance of Rule 46 of the Drugs & Cosmetics Rules by the Govt. Analysts. Learned Metropolitan Magistrate has acquitted respondent of the charges framed against him under Section 18 (i) and 18 (iia) read with Section 27 (b) of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940—the respondent was unaware and could not with reasonable diligence discover that the drugs in question were misbranded or in any way contravened the provisions of Section 18 of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940, Learned Metropolitan Magistrate has rightly held that case of the respondents was coverd under Section 19 (3) of the Act—in respect of ground (iv), holding that the respondent was stocking and exhibiting for sale drugs which were not meant for sale, the learned metropolitan Magistrate has convicted the respondent under Rule 65 (18) read with Section 18 (c) of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 and sentenced him to pay a fine in sum of Rs.1,000/-.
State( through Drugs Inspector, Delhi Administration) vs. Sh. Hukam Chand, Delhi High Court, 2008 Drugs Cases (DC) 143

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