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, 27 and 28
Section 18, 27 and 28
Offence under - The sessions Judge was right in holding that the Chief Judicial Magistrate could try the case as he was empowered to try the case and impose appropriate punishment in view of section 36 of the Act. But the Sessions Judge was not justified in passing the order of discharge of the accused for the offence under section 27 (a) of the Act—the accused were entitled to plead for discharge in case a charge was framed against them. However, the sessions Judge could not have discharged the accused when he himself was holding that the order of transfer/ committal was not justified—the accused shall be at liberty at raise all contentions that are available to them and the accused would also be at liberty to raise the plea that no offence was made out under section 27 (a) of the Act in view of the averments made in the complaint and the evidence adduced by the complainant.
State of Rajasthan vs. M/s Mittal Distributors and another, Supreme Court of India, 2005 Drugs Cases (DC) 363
Section 18, 27 and 28
- Offence under—the sessions Judge was right in holding that the Chief Judicial Magistrate could try the case as he was empowered to try the case and impose appropriate punishment in view of section 36 of the Act. But the Sessions Judge was not justified in passing the order of discharge of the accused for the offence under section 27 (a) of the Act—the accused were entitled to plead for discharge in case a charge was framed against them. However, the sessions Judge could not have discharged the accused when he himself was holding that the order of transfer/ committal was not justified—the accused shall be at liberty at raise all contentions that are available to them and the accused would also be at liberty to raise the plea that no offence was made out under section 27 (a) of the Act in view of the averments made in the complaint and the evidence adduced by the complainant.
State of Rajasthan vs. M/s Mittal Distributors and another, Supreme Court of India, 2005 Drugs Cases (DC) 363

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