Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.93 seconds)Manju Kumari And Anr. vs State Of Bihar And Ors. on 22 March, 2006
5. The submission is thoroughly misconceived. The relied upon judgment has no application to the present case and is distinguishable. In the said case, the Drug Inspector has not participated in the raid and it was made by police officials. However, here the case is different. Learned counsel for petitioners could not plead that in this case, there has been committed same illegality and infirmity by the respondent authorities as was done in the case of Manju Kumar and Anr. Vs. State of Bihar and Ors. (supra).
Section 32 in The Drugs And Cosmetics Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
The Drugs And Cosmetics Act, 1940
Km. Hema Mishra vs State Of Up & Ors on 16 January, 2014
7. The aforesaid dictum has been followed in Amarsarjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1962 SC 1305 (para 22), Cotton Corporation of India Limited Vs. United Industrial Bank Limited and others AIR 1983 SC 1272 (para 10) and recently in Km. Hema Mishra Vs. State of U.P. and others (2014) 4 SCC 453 (para 22).
Hindustan Lever Ltd. And Another vs State Of U.P. And Others on 26 February, 1999
12. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision reported in 1997 (1) BLJ 899 (Hindustan Liver Ltd. Vs. The State of Bihar and Ors.) wherein it has been held "that in my opinion the prosecution can be instituted by filing a complaint by the Drugs Inspector and the police has no jurisdiction to register a first information report and investigate into the offence under Act. The investigation by the police is, therefore, without jurisdiction and is liable to be quashed."