Showing : 111-120 of 132 Results

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2003
Details
Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, Section 18-- Contravention of the provisions of the Act - Drug Inspector to file complaint with the Magistrate - FIR cannot be lodged...........
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2003
Details
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 438, Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, Section 7, 17A, 17B, 18, 27, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 420-- Pre-arrest bail - Offence u/ss 17/17A/17B/18/27 of Drugs and Cosmetics Act and S.420 IPC - FIR lodged - S.18 provides that in case of contravention of the provisions of the Act, complaint is to be filed by the Drug Inspector with Magistrate and no FIR is to be registered - Offence u/s 420 IPC how..........
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2003
Details
Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, Section 17, 17A, 17B, 18, 27-- Contravention of provisions of Act - Complaint by Drug Inspector lies with Magistrate and no FIR is to be registered...........
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2003
Details
Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, Section 17, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 438-- FIR under S.17 of Drugs and Cosmetics Act - Offence u/s 420 IPC added subsequently - For contravention of provisions of Drugs Act complaint lies before Magistrate and no FIR is to be registered - Anticipatory bail allowed to accused...........
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, TAMIL NADU
Year of decision: 2003
Details
Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1),(c),(i),(iii),((v),14, Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, Section 9A(e), 33EE(e)-- Drugs and Cosmetic Rules, 1945, Rules 96(1) (B) (ii) and 96(1) (B) (iii) (c) ,(d) and (e) - Complaint - Unfair trade practice - Goods hazardous to life and safety - Ayurveda medicine - Found to contain 1681 ppm. lead against the permissible lead of 20 ppm. and also contained 32.15% of acid..........
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2003
Details
Criminal trial-- Independent witnesses - Raid by Drug Inspector - Independent witnesses not joined - Two doctors from his own department joined - They cannot be said to be independent witnesses - Conviction under Drugs and Cosmetics Act set aside...........
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2003
Details
Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, Section 27(b)(ii), Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 100(4)-- Raid by Drug Inspector - Recovery of drugs which accused was not authorised to possess - Independent witnesses not joined - Drug Inspector joined two doctors from his own department - They cannot be said to be independent witnesses - Conviction set aside...........
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2002
Details
Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, Section 27(B), 27(D), 28(A), 34-- Sleeping partner not in any way actively participating in the conduct of business - No allegation to indicate that at the relevant time sleeping partner was in charge of and responsible to the firm for the conduct of its business - Proceedings against him quashed...........
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2002
Details
Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, Section 27(B), 27(D), 28(A), 34-- Sleeping partners - Proceedings ordered to be dropped - No allegation to prima facie indicate that petitioners, partner of firm, were incharge of and responsible to firm for conduct of its business - Both persons ladies and living abroad at relevant time - Proceedings against petitioner lady..........
MADRAS HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2002
Details
Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, Section 18(c), 27(b)(ii)-- Mere possession of drugs without evidence to show that they were stocked for sale or distribution may not attract the relevant penal Section under Drugs and Cosmetics Act...........

Showing : 111-120 of 132 Results