Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.26 seconds)
Documents citing Drugs Inspector, Central Drugs ... vs Modern Drugs And Anr. on 3 November, 1981

Sumit Kumar vs The State Of Tamilnadu on 5 October, 2015

5. Mr.T.R.Ravi, learned counsel relied upon the judgment in Drugs Inspector v. Modern Drugs, Hyderabad, (1982 LW (Crl) 108) and contended that each of the accused should have been furnished with the sample for the purpose of challenge before the Central Laboratory. First of all, the above said case relates to an appeal from conviction imposed by the trial Court. That apart, in that case both Modern Drugs, Hyderabad, the manufacturer, and Sham Agencies (A-4), which was selling the drugs, were made as accused. In that context this Court held that the samples should have been given to each of the contesting firms.
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - P N Prakash - Full Document

Medicamen Biotech Limited And Anr. vs Rubina Bose on 19 May, 2006

18. Mr. Mukherjee referring to the decision in the case of Drugs Inspector, Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation (South) Zone, Madras-6 v. Modern Drugs and Anr. reported in 1982 Cr.LJ 2285, submitted that in absence of non-compliance of the provision under Section 25 of the Act, the proceeding cannot be allowed to continue. In the said case it was held that the accused having not been supplied copy of the analyst report, the conviction and sentence could not be sustained. Thus, it related to appreciation of materials at the post-conviction stage. In the present case, a close analysis of the allegations as made in the petition of complaint indicates alleged commission of the offence and the allegations made in such petition do not suffer from any such inherent absurdity so as to raise controversy in regard to its maintainability. There is no such inconsistency or antagonistic contradiction which strikes at the root of the case and makes further proceeding an undesirable exercise in futility. In view of the claim, as made in the application, that the sample collected were divided into four portions and one of the same was duly given to the accused persons and the further claim that copy of the report of Government Analyst was duly supplied, there does not seem to be much merit in the grievances. The petition of complaint which was filed before the learned Court and the copy of which was annexed to the present application and the relevant materials do not lend any support to the claim that continuation of the proceeding will be an abuse of the process of Court. The case at this stage does not seem to be suffering from any such inherent illegality which can justify interference in the way of quashing of the proceeding under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code.
Calcutta High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1