Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (1.49 seconds)
Documents citing The State Of Karnataka vs Vikram Chemical Laboratories And Ors. on 19 August, 1974

The Drugs Inspector vs M/S. Venus Remedies Ltd on 28 April, 2018

Our Hon'ble High Court in the case of State Of Karnataka Vs Vikram Chemical Laboratories reported in 1975 Cr.L.J 332 held that "When the sample tested is a pharmacopial drug, reference to tests and method prescribed is sufficient compliance of Rule 46 and the Govt. Analyst report is conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein." Thus the contention of the accused that for the reason of non examination of author of Form No. 2 and for non production of protocol test particulars, the report cannot be over looked.
Bangalore District Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Drugs Inspector vs M/S. Prem Pharmaceuticals on 30 April, 2018

Our Hon'ble High Court in the case of State Of Karnataka Vs Vikram Chemical Laboratories reported in 1975 Cr.L.J 332 held that "When the sample tested is a pharmacopial drug, reference to tests and method prescribed is sufficient compliance of Rule 46 and the Govt. Analyst report is conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein." Thus the contention of the accused that for the reason of non examination of author of Form No. 18 CC.No.177-11 2 and for non production of protocol test particulars, the report cannot be over looked.
Bangalore District Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Venus Remedies Ltd vs State At The Instance Of The Drugs ... on 22 October, 2024

Our Hon'ble High Court in the case of State Of Karnataka Vs Vikram Chemical Laboratories reported in 1975 Cr.L.J 332 held that "When the sample tested is a pharmacopial drug, reference to tests and method prescribed is sufficient compliance of Rule 46 and the Govt. Analyst report is conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein." Thus the contention of the accused that for the reason of non examination of author of Form No. 2 and for non production of protocol test particulars, the report cannot be over looked.
Bangalore District Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs M. Shankar Sharma on 29 July, 2025

In regard to the aforesaid issue, complainant D Sudhakaran sought to clarify that through the present FIR was registered in relation to the offence in question but a complaint was also filed by him on behalf of the department which was eventually tagged with the FIR proceedings and, therefore, the court can assume the proceedings to have continued on the basis of the said complaint (reliance is placed upon the judgments i.e. ASM Enterprises and Ors Vs. State, Delhi High Court, decided on 23.12.2020, State of Karnataka Vs. Vikram Chemical Laboratories and Ors, 1975 CRILJ 332 and Delhi Administration Vs. Puran Lal Ahuja, 28 (1985) DLT 392).
Delhi District Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1