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, 27 and 28-prosecution under
Section 18-A, 27 and 28-prosecution under
Neither of the two petitioners had to do anything with the business of their Late father - Petitioner sons of Late Shri D.K. Sethi, who was the licensee, authorised to carry on the business of sale, stock etc. all the drugs and that neither of the two petitioners had to do anything with the business of their Late father, who was the Proprietor of M/s Sethi Medical Agencies´┐Żthe petitioner No. 1 having sold the tablets and having issued the cash memo, and the petitioner No. 2 having received the report of the Drug Analyst, specially when the learned lower court record shows that the allegations in regard to the commission of offences, have been made against late Shri D.K. Sethi-if the prosecution against the petitioners, is not stopped, that would result into abuse of the process of court and injustice to the petitioners.
Subhash Chandra Sethi vs. State of Rjasthan, Rajasthan High Court, 2008 (2) Drugs Cases (DC) 362

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