Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (1.10 seconds)
Documents citing Rajinder Gupta vs The State [Along With Bail Applications ... on 22 August, 2005

Ravinder Gupta vs The State (Delhi Administration) on 18 November, 2016

Ravinder Gupta Vs.  State          6 13 As far as the objection of Ld. SPP for State is concerned, in the present case, the offence was that the article/food i.e. Vanaspati Ghee was found having deviation from standards i.e. melting point is found as 44 (31-41) and BT negative (should be positive). This was termed as adulteration in view of Sec.2(ia) of PFA Act and thus consequently punishable u/sec.16(1a) of PFA Act. The charge/notice was framed with these facts. There was no charge/notice in which it is stated that the said deviation was injurious to health. Had it been the case, the charge should have been u/sec.16(1A) (ii) of PFA Act.
Delhi District Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State Of Uttaranchal vs Rajesh Kumar Gupta on 10 November, 2006

The views which we have taken appear also to have been taken by the High Court of Delhi in Rajinder Gupta vs. The State [123 (2005) DLT 55] as also the Bombay High Court in Pradeep Dhond vs. Intelligence Officer, Narcotic & Control Bureau, Ballard Estate and Anr. [Criminal Application No. 6787 of 2005] disposed of on 7th February, 2006 by the Bombay High Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 226 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Union Of India vs Jagdish Singh And Anr on 17 February, 2011

In fact, in view of this, the case would not fall within the limits ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:51:37 ::: 22 Cri.Appln. No.1405.10 of commercial quantity to which the rigours of Section 37 NDPS Act are applicable and the bail application could be considered as per the provisions of Section 437 or 439 of the Cr.P.C. The view taken by the Delhi High Court in Rajinder Gupta (supra) was followed by learned Single Judge of this Court in M.V. Henry, Intelligence Officer vs. Raviprakash Goyal (supra). In that case also, according to the prosecution, one Aslam Mohammed Shaikh was to receive a consignment of Norphazine Injections containing Buprenorphine, which is a psychotropic substance. On information, in presence of the panch witnesses and Aslam Mohammed Shaikh, search of the premises of transporter M/s.Chavla Carriers was carried out and the NCB recovered and seized 11950 ampoules of the said psychotropic substance. Said samples were manufactured by M/s.Gopish Pharma, a firm carrying on business in New Delhi. Accused Ravi Prakash Goel was a proprietor of the said firm. The said ampoules were transported from M/s.Gopish Pharma i.e. from the accused Ravi Prakash Goel to M/s. G and G Medicine Company which was the sole distribution agent for M/s.Gopish Pharma. In that case, Aslam Mohammed Shaikh was granted bail on the ground that the quantity of the psychotropic substance was less than commercial quantity. On the same ground, Ravi Prakash Goel was also granted bail. That order was challenged by the Intelligence Officer before this Court. This Court (Coram : S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.) concurred with the view taken by Delhi High Court in respect of the Rules and held that the said drug, though a ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:51:37 ::: 23 Cri.Appln. No.1405.10 psychotropic substance, was also a schedule H drug for which the licences are given under the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945. In the result, the application for cancellation of bail was rejected. It is material to note that in paras 2 and 4 of that judgment, the learned Judge repeatedly stated that the observations and findings in the said order were only for the disposal of the bail application and those observations are only prima facie and shall not prevent the court below from recording its finding on merits at the time of the conclusion of the trial. The learned Judge further observed that the prohibition contained in the statute must be seen in the context of individual operations and the psychotropic substance, in question.
Bombay High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - J H Bhatia - Full Document

Union Of India vs Jagdish Singh And Anr on 17 February, 2011

In fact, in view of this, the case would not fall within the limits ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:51:38 ::: 22 Cri.Appln. No.1405.10 of commercial quantity to which the rigours of Section 37 NDPS Act are applicable and the bail application could be considered as per the provisions of Section 437 or 439 of the Cr.P.C. The view taken by the Delhi High Court in Rajinder Gupta (supra) was followed by learned Single Judge of this Court in M.V. Henry, Intelligence Officer vs. Raviprakash Goyal (supra). In that case also, according to the prosecution, one Aslam Mohammed Shaikh was to receive a consignment of Norphazine Injections containing Buprenorphine, which is a psychotropic substance. On information, in presence of the panch witnesses and Aslam Mohammed Shaikh, search of the premises of transporter M/s.Chavla Carriers was carried out and the NCB recovered and seized 11950 ampoules of the said psychotropic substance. Said samples were manufactured by M/s.Gopish Pharma, a firm carrying on business in New Delhi. Accused Ravi Prakash Goel was a proprietor of the said firm. The said ampoules were transported from M/s.Gopish Pharma i.e. from the accused Ravi Prakash Goel to M/s. G and G Medicine Company which was the sole distribution agent for M/s.Gopish Pharma. In that case, Aslam Mohammed Shaikh was granted bail on the ground that the quantity of the psychotropic substance was less than commercial quantity. On the same ground, Ravi Prakash Goel was also granted bail. That order was challenged by the Intelligence Officer before this Court. This Court (Coram : S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.) concurred with the view taken by Delhi High Court in respect of the Rules and held that the said drug, though a ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:51:38 ::: 23 Cri.Appln. No.1405.10 psychotropic substance, was also a schedule H drug for which the licences are given under the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945. In the result, the application for cancellation of bail was rejected. It is material to note that in paras 2 and 4 of that judgment, the learned Judge repeatedly stated that the observations and findings in the said order were only for the disposal of the bail application and those observations are only prima facie and shall not prevent the court below from recording its finding on merits at the time of the conclusion of the trial. The learned Judge further observed that the prohibition contained in the statute must be seen in the context of individual operations and the psychotropic substance, in question.
Bombay High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - J H Bhatia - Full Document

Union Of India vs Jagdish Singh And Anr on 17 February, 2011

In fact, in view of this, the case would not fall within the limits ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:51:40 ::: 22 Cri.Appln. No.1405.10 of commercial quantity to which the rigours of Section 37 NDPS Act are applicable and the bail application could be considered as per the provisions of Section 437 or 439 of the Cr.P.C. The view taken by the Delhi High Court in Rajinder Gupta (supra) was followed by learned Single Judge of this Court in M.V. Henry, Intelligence Officer vs. Raviprakash Goyal (supra). In that case also, according to the prosecution, one Aslam Mohammed Shaikh was to receive a consignment of Norphazine Injections containing Buprenorphine, which is a psychotropic substance. On information, in presence of the panch witnesses and Aslam Mohammed Shaikh, search of the premises of transporter M/s.Chavla Carriers was carried out and the NCB recovered and seized 11950 ampoules of the said psychotropic substance. Said samples were manufactured by M/s.Gopish Pharma, a firm carrying on business in New Delhi. Accused Ravi Prakash Goel was a proprietor of the said firm. The said ampoules were transported from M/s.Gopish Pharma i.e. from the accused Ravi Prakash Goel to M/s. G and G Medicine Company which was the sole distribution agent for M/s.Gopish Pharma. In that case, Aslam Mohammed Shaikh was granted bail on the ground that the quantity of the psychotropic substance was less than commercial quantity. On the same ground, Ravi Prakash Goel was also granted bail. That order was challenged by the Intelligence Officer before this Court. This Court (Coram : S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.) concurred with the view taken by Delhi High Court in respect of the Rules and held that the said drug, though a ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:51:40 ::: 23 Cri.Appln. No.1405.10 psychotropic substance, was also a schedule H drug for which the licences are given under the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945. In the result, the application for cancellation of bail was rejected. It is material to note that in paras 2 and 4 of that judgment, the learned Judge repeatedly stated that the observations and findings in the said order were only for the disposal of the bail application and those observations are only prima facie and shall not prevent the court below from recording its finding on merits at the time of the conclusion of the trial. The learned Judge further observed that the prohibition contained in the statute must be seen in the context of individual operations and the psychotropic substance, in question.
Bombay High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - J H Bhatia - Full Document

Union Of India vs Jagdish Singh And Anr on 17 February, 2011

In fact, in view of this, the case would not fall within the limits ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:51:41 ::: 22 Cri.Appln. No.1405.10 of commercial quantity to which the rigours of Section 37 NDPS Act are applicable and the bail application could be considered as per the provisions of Section 437 or 439 of the Cr.P.C. The view taken by the Delhi High Court in Rajinder Gupta (supra) was followed by learned Single Judge of this Court in M.V. Henry, Intelligence Officer vs. Raviprakash Goyal (supra). In that case also, according to the prosecution, one Aslam Mohammed Shaikh was to receive a consignment of Norphazine Injections containing Buprenorphine, which is a psychotropic substance. On information, in presence of the panch witnesses and Aslam Mohammed Shaikh, search of the premises of transporter M/s.Chavla Carriers was carried out and the NCB recovered and seized 11950 ampoules of the said psychotropic substance. Said samples were manufactured by M/s.Gopish Pharma, a firm carrying on business in New Delhi. Accused Ravi Prakash Goel was a proprietor of the said firm. The said ampoules were transported from M/s.Gopish Pharma i.e. from the accused Ravi Prakash Goel to M/s. G and G Medicine Company which was the sole distribution agent for M/s.Gopish Pharma. In that case, Aslam Mohammed Shaikh was granted bail on the ground that the quantity of the psychotropic substance was less than commercial quantity. On the same ground, Ravi Prakash Goel was also granted bail. That order was challenged by the Intelligence Officer before this Court. This Court (Coram : S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.) concurred with the view taken by Delhi High Court in respect of the Rules and held that the said drug, though a ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:51:41 ::: 23 Cri.Appln. No.1405.10 psychotropic substance, was also a schedule H drug for which the licences are given under the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945. In the result, the application for cancellation of bail was rejected. It is material to note that in paras 2 and 4 of that judgment, the learned Judge repeatedly stated that the observations and findings in the said order were only for the disposal of the bail application and those observations are only prima facie and shall not prevent the court below from recording its finding on merits at the time of the conclusion of the trial. The learned Judge further observed that the prohibition contained in the statute must be seen in the context of individual operations and the psychotropic substance, in question.
Bombay High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 2 - J H Bhatia - Full Document

Union Of India vs Ravindran Krarapaya @ Ravi & Ors on 19 November, 2010

In fact, in view of this, the case would not fall within the limits of commercial quantity to which the rigours of Section 37 NDPS Act are applicable and the bail application could be considered as per the provisions of Section ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:37:28 ::: 28 cri.applns.3618-10, 5640-2009 437 or 439 of the Cr.P.C. The view taken by the Delhi High Court in Rajinder Gupta (supra) was followed by learned Single Judge of this Court in M.V. Henry, Intelligence Officer vs. Raviprakash Goyal (supra). In that case also, according to the prosecution, one Aslam Mohammed Shaikh was to receive a consignment of Norphazine Injections containing Buprenorphine, which is a psychotropic substance. On information, in presence of the panch witnesses and Aslam Mohammed Shaikh, search of the premises of transporter M/s.Chavla Carriers was carried out and the NCB recovered and seized 11950 ampoules of the said psychotropic substance. Said samples were manufactured by M/s.Gopish Pharma, a firm carrying on business in New Delhi. Accused Ravi Prakash Goel was a proprietor of the said firm. The said ampoules were transported from M/s.Gopish Pharma i.e. from the accused Ravi Prakash Goel to M/s. G and G Medicine Company which was the sole distribution agent for M/s.Gopish Pharma. In that case, Aslam Mohammed Shaikh was granted bail on the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:37:28 ::: 29 cri.applns.3618-10, 5640-2009 ground that the quantity of the psychotropic substance was less than commercial quantity. On the same ground, Ravi Prakash Goel was also granted bail. That order was challenged by the Intelligence Officer before this Court. This Court (Coram : S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.) concurred with the view taken by Delhi High Court in respect of the Rules and held that the said drug, though a psychotropic substance, was also a schedule H drug for which the licences are given under the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945.
Bombay High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 1 - J H Bhatia - Full Document

Union Of India vs Jagdish Singh And Anr on 17 February, 2011

In fact, in view of this, the case would not fall within the limits ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:51:43 ::: 22 Cri.Appln. No.1405.10 of commercial quantity to which the rigours of Section 37 NDPS Act are applicable and the bail application could be considered as per the provisions of Section 437 or 439 of the Cr.P.C. The view taken by the Delhi High Court in Rajinder Gupta (supra) was followed by learned Single Judge of this Court in M.V. Henry, Intelligence Officer vs. Raviprakash Goyal (supra). In that case also, according to the prosecution, one Aslam Mohammed Shaikh was to receive a consignment of Norphazine Injections containing Buprenorphine, which is a psychotropic substance. On information, in presence of the panch witnesses and Aslam Mohammed Shaikh, search of the premises of transporter M/s.Chavla Carriers was carried out and the NCB recovered and seized 11950 ampoules of the said psychotropic substance. Said samples were manufactured by M/s.Gopish Pharma, a firm carrying on business in New Delhi. Accused Ravi Prakash Goel was a proprietor of the said firm. The said ampoules were transported from M/s.Gopish Pharma i.e. from the accused Ravi Prakash Goel to M/s. G and G Medicine Company which was the sole distribution agent for M/s.Gopish Pharma. In that case, Aslam Mohammed Shaikh was granted bail on the ground that the quantity of the psychotropic substance was less than commercial quantity. On the same ground, Ravi Prakash Goel was also granted bail. That order was challenged by the Intelligence Officer before this Court. This Court (Coram : S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.) concurred with the view taken by Delhi High Court in respect of the Rules and held that the said drug, though a ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:51:43 ::: 23 Cri.Appln. No.1405.10 psychotropic substance, was also a schedule H drug for which the licences are given under the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945. In the result, the application for cancellation of bail was rejected. It is material to note that in paras 2 and 4 of that judgment, the learned Judge repeatedly stated that the observations and findings in the said order were only for the disposal of the bail application and those observations are only prima facie and shall not prevent the court below from recording its finding on merits at the time of the conclusion of the trial. The learned Judge further observed that the prohibition contained in the statute must be seen in the context of individual operations and the psychotropic substance, in question.
Bombay High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - J H Bhatia - Full Document

Union Of India vs Jagdish Singh And Anr on 17 February, 2011

In fact, in view of this, the case would not fall within the limits ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:51:36 ::: 22 Cri.Appln. No.1405.10 of commercial quantity to which the rigours of Section 37 NDPS Act are applicable and the bail application could be considered as per the provisions of Section 437 or 439 of the Cr.P.C. The view taken by the Delhi High Court in Rajinder Gupta (supra) was followed by learned Single Judge of this Court in M.V. Henry, Intelligence Officer vs. Raviprakash Goyal (supra). In that case also, according to the prosecution, one Aslam Mohammed Shaikh was to receive a consignment of Norphazine Injections containing Buprenorphine, which is a psychotropic substance. On information, in presence of the panch witnesses and Aslam Mohammed Shaikh, search of the premises of transporter M/s.Chavla Carriers was carried out and the NCB recovered and seized 11950 ampoules of the said psychotropic substance. Said samples were manufactured by M/s.Gopish Pharma, a firm carrying on business in New Delhi. Accused Ravi Prakash Goel was a proprietor of the said firm. The said ampoules were transported from M/s.Gopish Pharma i.e. from the accused Ravi Prakash Goel to M/s. G and G Medicine Company which was the sole distribution agent for M/s.Gopish Pharma. In that case, Aslam Mohammed Shaikh was granted bail on the ground that the quantity of the psychotropic substance was less than commercial quantity. On the same ground, Ravi Prakash Goel was also granted bail. That order was challenged by the Intelligence Officer before this Court. This Court (Coram : S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.) concurred with the view taken by Delhi High Court in respect of the Rules and held that the said drug, though a ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:51:36 ::: 23 Cri.Appln. No.1405.10 psychotropic substance, was also a schedule H drug for which the licences are given under the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945. In the result, the application for cancellation of bail was rejected. It is material to note that in paras 2 and 4 of that judgment, the learned Judge repeatedly stated that the observations and findings in the said order were only for the disposal of the bail application and those observations are only prima facie and shall not prevent the court below from recording its finding on merits at the time of the conclusion of the trial. The learned Judge further observed that the prohibition contained in the statute must be seen in the context of individual operations and the psychotropic substance, in question.
Bombay High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - J H Bhatia - Full Document
1   2 Next