Allowed

M/S Good Kare Medico Pvt. Ltd. and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC30 Jul 2018A482/21342/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a special application under s. 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court held that the C.J.M., Ghaziabad lacked jurisdiction to try offences under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act due to a valid notification designating the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Meerut, as the Special Court. Consequently, the impugned proceedings were quashed.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings pending before the C.J.M., Ghaziabad were quashed and the matter directed to be moved before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Meerut.

M/S Good Kare Medico Pvt. Ltd. and 4 Others Vs State of… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

Order Reserved : 26.7.2018

¶3

Order Delivered on 30.07.2018

¶4

Court No. - 44

¶5

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21342 of 2018

¶6

Applicant :- M/S Good Kare Medico Pvt. Ltd. And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sameer Jain Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Jitendra Prasad Mishra

¶7

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶8

Heard Mr. Sameer Jain, learned counsel for the applicants, the learned A.G.A. for the State and Mr. Jitendra Prasad Mihsra who has put in appearance on behalf of the opposite party No. 2.

¶9

This application under section 482 Cr. P. C. has been filed challenging the summoning order dated 14.9.2017, passed by the C.J.M., Ghaziabad, in Complaint Case No. 25954 of 2015 (Union of India Versus M/s Good Kare Medico Pvt. Ltd. and others), under section 27 (b) (i), 27 (d) Drugs and Cosmetics Act, pending before the C.J.M., Ghaziabad as well as entire proceedings of the above mentioned complaint case.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicants has invited the attention of the Court to the notification dated 05.08.20111 issued by the State Government in respect of the Courts designated as Special Court under the provisions of Section 36-AB of The Drugs and Cosmetics (Amendment) Act 2008 (Act no. 26 of 2008) to try the offences under the above mentioned Act. On the basis of the aforesaid notification, he submits that the C.J.M., Ghaziabad has no jurisdiction to try the complaint filed by the opposite party No. 2, which admittedly is under the provisions of section 27 (b) (i) and 27 (d) Drugs and Cosmetics Act.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. and Mr. Jitendra Prasad Mishra both were granted time to ascertain the aforesaid fact and accordingly the matter was posted after lunch. Learned A.G.A. has submitted that the notification dated 05.08.2011 is still in force.

¶12

In view of the aforesaid, the proceedings pending before the C.J.M., Ghaziabad by way of above mentioned complaint case are wholly

¶13

¶14

without jurisdiction. Consequently, the same are quashed. In case, the opposite party so desires, the same may be presented before the appropriate Court, which according to the notification dated 05.08.2011 shall be the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Meerut. The copy of the Government notification dated 05.08.2011 relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicants is also placed on record.

¶15

With the aforesaid directions, the present application is allowed.

¶16

Order Date :- 30.7.2018 HSM

M/S Good Kare Medico Pvt. Ltd. and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Good Kare Medico Pvt. Ltd. and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Subhash Pundeer and 6 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mahavir Singh and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Awadhessh Kumar Pandey AND4 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Varun Kumar Gupta and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Munna Lal and 3 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Rajeev Kumar Srivastava Vs State of Up and Another