LawMirror.com

Results of drugs and cosmetics

Andriod Application iphone Application

Showing : 61-70 of 177 Results

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Year of decision: 2017
Details

Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, Section 7A, 5, 7 -- Provison of S.7-A of the Act prohibits application of Ss.5, 7 of the Act to Ayurvedic, Siddha or Unani drugs, which means that DTAB set up in S.5 of the Act applies to all drugs except Ayurvedic, Siddha or Unani drugs, as separate and distinct drill is followed in said drugs...........

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Year of decision: 2017
Details

Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, Section 26A -- Prohibition of certain Fixed Dose Combinations (FDCs) by Central Government - It is not clear as to what exactly are the reasons for such prohibition - Since an analysis be made in greater depth, cases should go to DTAB and/or sub-committee formed by DTAB for purpose of having relook into these cases - Direction issued...........

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Year of decision: 2017
Details

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 439, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 272, 273, 34, Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, Section 27(b)(ii), 28, 36AC, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Section 22(C) -- Bail - Recovery of 4000 bottles of Corex Cough syrup containing codeine - Though Central Government by its notification prohibit the manufacture,..........

JHARKHAND HIGH COURT

Year of decision: 2017
Details

Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, Section 27(d), Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 468, 482 -- Sample of medicine Decicort Tab - Cognizance of offence - Limitation - Sample found to be sub standard - Maximum punishment which can be imposed u/s 27(d) of Act of 1940 is 2 years and period of limitation as prescribed u/s 468 Cr.P.C. is three years - However, more than 8..........

JHARKHAND HIGH COURT

Year of decision: 2017
Details

Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, Section 27(d), 28A, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 482, 468 -- Cognizance of offence - Quashing of order - Offence u/ss 27(d), 28A IPC - Delay of more than 4 years in filing complaint - While taking cognizance, Magistrate did not take into consideration delay in institution of complaint - Even, complainant failed to explain the delay..........

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

Year of decision: 2017
Details

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 468, 469, Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, Section 27B(1), 17A, 18A, 18C, 22D, 22A -- Limitation - Complaint u/ss 27-B(1), 17-A, 18-A, 18-C, 22-D, 22-A, 22(3) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act - Drug Inspector came to know about identity, designation and authority of petitioners on 9.5.91 - Complaint filed on 1.12.92 - Complaint filed within..........

GUJARAT HIGH COURT

Year of decision: 2017
Details

Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, Section 34 -- Trust - Private or public, charitable or otherwise is a juristic person and is liable to be punished for the offence committed under the Drugs Act - Every trustee who was incharge of the day to day affairs of the Trust, is also liable for punishment besides the Trust for the offence committed by Trust...........

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Year of decision: 2017
Details

Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, Section 23(4), 25 -- Sample of cough syrup - Reanalysis - Part of sample was not sent to manufacturer required u/s 23(4)(iii) of the Act - Valuable right of accused is thus, violated - Even otherwise, cognizance of complaint taken by Court after delay of 2 years on the date when shelf life of drug in question had expired - Delay in both the..........

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Year of decision: 2017
Details

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 427, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Section 22, 27(b)(ii), Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, Section 28 -- Concurrent running of sentences - Offence u/ss 22, 27(b)(ii) of NDPS Act and S.28 of D&C Act - Accused was earlier convicted u/s 22 of NDPS Act and subsequently convicted u/s 27(b)(ii) NDPS Act and S.28 of D&C..........

MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT

Year of decision: 2017
Details

Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, Section 36AB, 32 -- Special Court constituted under the Act cannot take direct cognizance, without accused being committed to it for trial - No fault therefore, can be found in the impugned order passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate committing the case to special Court...........

Showing : 61-70 of 177 Results