Must have:

share this post:

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

summary:

Points for consideration

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

Related Posts

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

Subscribe For News

Get the latest sports news from News Site about world, sports and politics.

You have been successfully Subscribed! Ops! Something went wrong, please try again.

Subscribe For More!

Get the latest and creative news updates on criminal law...

You have been successfully Subscribed! Ops! Something went wrong, please try again.

Disclaimer:

Contents of this Web Site are for general information or use only. They do not constitute any advice and should not be relied upon in making (or refraining from making) any personal or public decision. We hereby exclude any warranty, express or implied, as to the quality, accuracy, timeliness, completeness, performance, fitness for a particular page of the Site or any of its contents, including (but not limited) to any financial contents within the Site. We will not be liable for any damages (including, without limitation, damages for loss of business projects, or loss of profits) arising in contract, tort or otherwise from the use of or inability to use the site or any of its contents, or from any action taken (or refrained from being taken) as a result of using the Site or any of its contents. We shall give no warranty that the contents of the Site are free from infection by viruses or anything else which has contaminating or destructive user’s properties though we care to maintain the site virus/malware-free.

For further reading visit our ‘About‘ page.

© 2023 Developed and maintained by PAPERPAGE INTERNET SERVICES

Crypto wallet - Game Changer

Questions explained agreeable preferred strangers too him beautiful her son.