Notification
Font ResizerAa
  • Latest
    • Supreme Court
    • Madras High Court
    • Madurai Bench
  • Quick Recall
    • Arms Act
    • BNSS
    • BNS
    • BSA
    • Evidence
    • Drugs Act
    • Cr.P.C
    • IPC
    • N.I.Act
    • PMLA
    • NDPS
    • Corruption Laws
    • General
    • Passports Act
    • Pocso
    • MCOP
    • Writ
  • Acquittal
    • S.C
    • Madras High Court
  • 3 judge bench
  • Resources
    • Notes
      • Cr.P.C 1973
      • Crimes
    • Articles
      • P.G.Rajagopal
      • AD. RAMPRAKASH RAJAGOPAL
      • Ad. Karunanithi
      • Ad. Ravindran Raghunathan
      • James Raja
    • Digest
      • Monthly Digest
      • Weekly digest
      • Subject wise
    • Bare Acts
      • BSA 2023
      • BNS 2023
      • BNSS 2023
  • Must Read
  • Author’s note
  • Legal words
  • Civil
    • s. 91 cpc
  • About
    • Terms
    • Privacy policy
    • Cancellation & Refund Policy
    • Team
  • My Bookmarks
Reading: Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940: If seller proves that he acquired the drug or cosmetic from a duly licensed manufacturer, distributor or dealer. He shall not be liable for a contravention of section18 of the Act
Share
Font ResizerAa
  • Latest
  • Acquittal
  • Digest
  • Resources
Search
  • Latest
    • Madras High Court
    • Madurai Bench
    • Supreme Court
  • Quick Recall
    • Evidence
    • Cr.P.C
    • IPC
    • N.I.Act
    • Pocso
    • PMLA
    • NDPS
    • Corruption Laws
    • General
    • Passports Act
  • Acquittal
    • S.C
    • Madras High Court
  • Digest
    • Monthly Digest
    • Weekly digest
  • Resources
    • Notes
    • Articles
  • 3 judge bench
  • Must have
  • Author’S Note
  • Legal words
  • About
    • Terms
    • Privacy policy
    • Cancellation & Refund Policy
    • Team
  • Mobile APP
  • My Bookmarks

Get Notifications

Notification
Follow US
> Quick Recall> General> Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940: If seller proves that he acquired the drug or cosmetic from a duly licensed manufacturer, distributor or dealer. He shall not be liable for a contravention of section18 of the Act

Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940: If seller proves that he acquired the drug or cosmetic from a duly licensed manufacturer, distributor or dealer. He shall not be liable for a contravention of section18 of the Act

Ramprakash Rajagopal November 13, 2023 2 Min Read
Share
Points
Prayer
Prayer

Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, pleased to call for the records pertaining in C.C. No.03 of 2008 on the file of the learned XV Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai and quash the same.

The Drug Inspector, Park Town I Range, on 25.10.2005 conducted search and seized AMOXYCILLIN capsules manufactured by United Pharma Remedies from the traders M/s.Venus Agency, M/s.Ambica Parmceuticals and M/s.Vasant Pharma Traders and M/s.Mahaa Bio, Chennai.

  1. This Court allowed the quash petition and as on date, there is no complaint against the manufacturer. This petitioner who is arrayed as A7 is not the manufacturer, he is a seller of drug. Under Section 19 (3) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, a person, not being the manufacturer of a drug or cosmetic or his agent for the distribution thereof, shall not be liable for a contravention of Section 18 if he proves that he acquired the drug or cosmetic from a duly licensed manufacturer, distributor or dealer thereof and he is acted diligently without knowledge of the contravention of the provision.

  2. From the complaint, it is apparently seen that the petitioner is only a seller neither the manufacturer nor the agent of the manufacturer. When the case against the manufacture now been quashed, nothing survives in this petition. This quash petition is allowed at the SR stage itself. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petition is closed.

PARTY: S.Manoj Kumar … Petitioner vs. State of Tamil Nadu Represented by its Drugs Inspector, Park Town I Range, Office of the Assistant Director of Drug Control, Zone -I, Chennai – 600 006 … Respondent – Crl.O.P.SR.No.44154 of 2023 and Crl.M.P.No.15145 of 2023 – 10.10.2023 – CORAM THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/index.php/casestatus/viewpdf/1077651

s.manoj kumar vs. state – drugs act

Subject Study

  • Whether power of attorney can delegate his powers to special power of attorney? S.C says ‘yes’
  • Defence counsels don’t worry I teach you to take defence
  • Judgment: Court cannot convict one accused and acquit the other for the similar or identical evidence in a case
  • Whether the same accused can be arrested and grant bail for new offence added in the FIR? Whether “Victim” has rights during bail?
  • What is section 313 Cr.P.C & How to appreciate the same? A detailed analysis
  • Dying declaration: Section 304-B IPC – Wife poured kerosene and the husband taking undue advantage lighted with matchstick and hence murder
  • A brief study of default bail under section 187 (3) BNSS (Old 167(2) Cr.P.C)
  • Section 138 NI Act: Unless the firm is added as primary accused the partner cannot be fasten vicarious criminal liability for firm

Further Study

POCSO Case: Petition for compromise quash filed by the victim herself stating she wants to marry some other person: Madras High Court after enquiry dismissed the petition on impression that the petitioner was not filed the petition voluntarily

TAGGED:1940cosmeticsdrug case quasheddrug manufacturerdrug sellerdrugsDRUGS & COSMETICS ACTjustice jayachandranmanoj kumar
Previous Article POCSO Case: Petition for compromise quash filed by the victim herself stating she wants to marry some other person: Madras High Court after enquiry dismissed the petition on impression that the petitioner was not filed the petition voluntarily
Next Article Conviction upheld under section 302 IPC and sections 55, 57 Abkari Act
Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Popular Study

March'25 Monthly Digest

March’25 Monthly Digest

section1 April 4, 2025
Monthly Digest February’ [End] 2025
N.I Act: Certain documents were suppressed in the statement on oath and made out a false case
Appellants went to deceased’s house armed demonstrating premeditation and intention to cause injury and thus not qualifying for any exceptions under section 300 IPC
Firearm: Acquittal: Ballistic report opined that two bullets found in the bodies were not sufficient for comparison with the test fired bullets

About

Section1.in is all about the legal updates in Criminal and Corporate Laws. This website also gives opportunity to publish your (readers/users) articles subject to the condition of being edited (only if necessary) by the team of Advocates. Kindly send your articles to paperpageindia@gmail.com or WhatsApp to +919361570190.
  • Quick Links
  • Team
  • Terms
  • Cancellation Policy
  • Privacy Policy
  • My Bookmarks

section1.in is powered by Paperpage.             © Paperpage Internet Services.                       All Rights Reserved.

Subscribe Newsletter for free

Subscribe to our newsletter to get judgments instantly!

Check your inbox or spam folder to confirm your subscription.

ஓர்ந்துகண் ணோடாது இறைபுரிந்து யார்மாட்டும் தேர்ந்துசெய் வஃதே முறை [541].

_திருவள்ளுவர்
Welcome Back!

Sign in to your account

Username or Email Address
Password

Lost your password?