Dismissed¶31

State of Hp v. Dinesh Kumar

Himachal Pradesh HC11 Nov 2025CR.R/463/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Himachal Pradesh High Court, Shimla; Cr. Revision No. 463 of 2025; decided 11.11.2025 by Rakesh Kainthla, J.; State revision against refusal to frame charge under Section 18(a)(vi) Drugs and Cosmetics Act; charge framing prima facie; valid retail drug licence Form-20 and Form-21 valid up to 19.8.2019; Government Analyst report of standard quality; no contravention of Chapter or Rules pleaded; failure to disclose manufacturer and maintain records punished under Sections 18A and 18B; Section 22(3) Drugs Act; revision dismissed; Trial Court order upheld.

What did the court decide?

None; the revision petition was dismissed and the order of the learned Trial Court declining to frame a charge under Section 18(a)(vi) of the Drugs Act was upheld. ¶31

State of Hp Vs Dinesh Kumar — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the revision petition was dismissed and the order of the learned Trial Court declining to frame a charge under Section 18(a)(vi) of the Drugs Act was upheld.

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the learned Trial Court erred in declining to frame a charge under Section 18(a)(vi) of the Drugs Act against the accused. +1 more

¶19

Court's answer

The accused's failure to disclose the name of the person from whom he acquired the drugs and his failure to maintain records fall under Sections 18A and 18B of the Drugs Act, for which the accused was duly charged; thus the learned Trial Court had dealt with the accused as per the provisions of the Act.

¶30

Ratio / Principle

Under Section 18(a)(vi) of the Drugs Act, the prosecution must prove that the accused possessed the drugs in violation of the provisions of the Chapter of the Drugs Act or the Rules framed thereunder; the complaint was silent regarding the violation of any Rule and specifically asserted that the accused produced a valid retail drug licence on Form-20 and Form-21 valid up to 19.8.2019, so the accused had a valid licence to sell the drugs.

¶25

Key takeaways

Since the samples sent to the Government Analyst were declared to be of standard quality, the drugs did not violate the standards of quality, no other violation was asserted, and therefore the learned Trial Court was justified in holding that no case for the violation of Section 18(a)(vi) was made out.ratio¶29
There is no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Trial Court declining to frame a charge under Section 18(a)(vi); hence the present petition fails and is dismissed.ratio¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal revision by the State against the order of the learned Special Judge, Bilaspur, H.P. dated 16.4.2025 declining to frame a charge under Section 18(a)(vi) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. Held, dismissing the revision: Section 18(a)(vi) prohibits manufacture, sale, stocking, exhibition or distribution of any drug in contravention of the provisions of the Chapter or the Rules framed thereunder, and the prosecution was therefore required to prove such contravention. The complaint was silent regarding the violation of any Rule; it specifically asserted that the accused produced a valid retail drug licence on Form-20 and Form-21 valid up to 19.8.2019, and the samples sent to the Government Analyst were found to be of standard quality, so no violation of quality standards or of any Rule was asserted. The accused's failure to disclose the source of the drugs and to maintain purchase and sale records was covered by Sections 18A and 18B of the Drugs Act, for which he was separately charged, pleaded guilty, and was convicted and sentenced. There being no infirmity in the Trial Court's order, the revision petition was dismissed.

¶1

2025:HHC:37744

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

Cr. Revision No. 463 of 2025 Reserved on: 8.10.2025 Date of Decision: 11.11.2025.

¶4

State of H.P. ...Petitioner Versus Dinesh Kumar ...Respondent

¶5

Coram

¶6

Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla , Judge.

¶7

Whether approved for reporting?¹ No.

¶8

For the Petitioner/State : Mr Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General. For the Respondent : None.

¶9

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

¶10

The present revision is directed against the order dated 16.4.2025, passed by learned Special Judge, Bilaspur, H.P. (learned Trial Court) vide which the learned Trial Court declined to frame a charge under Section 18(a)(vi) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act (Drugs Act). (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)

¶11

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

¶12

¶13

2025:HHC:37744

¶14

Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present revision are that the Drugs Inspector filed a complaint against the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Section 18A and 18B, 18(a)(vi) and Section 22(3) of the Drugs Act. It was asserted that the complainant inspected the premises of the accused on 21.3.2017. The accused was present in the shop and was selling the drugs belonging to the modern system of medicines. The accused produced the license on demand. The Drugs Inspector found several habit-forming and other scheduled drugs in the premises. He asked the accused to disclose the name of the person from whom he had acquired those drugs; however, the accused failed to submit any record. No purchase and sale record was maintained by the accused. The complainant seized the drugs in the presence of witnesses. He drew the samples and sent them to the Government Analyst. As per the report, the drugs were found to be of standard quality. The report of analysis was served upon the accused. The accused failed to respond to the letters written by the complainant. Hence, a complaint was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, who committed it to the learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, HP, for trial.

¶15

¶16

2025:HHC:37744

¶17

Learned Trial Court held that the medicines were

¶18

sent for chemical analysis and were found to be of standard quality. Therefore, the provisions of Section 18(a)(vi) of the Drugs Act were not violated. The charges were framed for the commission of offences punishable under Section 18A and 18B of the Drugs Act, to which the accused pleaded guilty. Hence, the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused.

¶19

Being aggrieved by the non-framing of the charges, the State has filed the present petition asserting that the learned Trial Court erred in holding that no case under Section 18(a)(vi) of the Drugs Act was made out. The Court has to see a prima facie case while framing the charge. The material on record clearly proved a violation of Section 18(a)(vi) of the Drugs Act. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the order passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside.

¶20

Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the petitioner/State, submitted that the learned Trial Court erred in not framing the charge. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the order passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside.

¶21

¶22

2025:HHC:37744

¶23

I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

¶24

Section 18(a)(vi) reads that from such date as may be fixed by the State Government by notification in the ofÏcial gazette in this behalf, no person shall himself or by any other person on his behalf manufacture for sale or distribution, sell, stock, exhibit or offer for sale, or distribute any drug or cosmetic in contravention of any of the provision of this chapter or any rule made thereunder.

¶25

Therefore, the prosecution is required to prove that the accused had possessed the drugs in violation of the provisions of the chapter of the Drugs Act or the Rules framed thereunder. The complaint is silent regarding the violation of any Rule. It was specifically asserted that the accused produced the retail drug licence on Form-20 and Form-21, valid up to 19.8.2019. Therefore, the accused was having a valid licence to sell the drugs.

¶26

It was also stated in para. 8 of the complaint that the samples were sent to a Government analyst and they were declared to be of standard quality. Therefore, the drugs did not

¶27

¶28

2025:HHC:37744

¶29

violate the standards of quality. No other violation was asserted. Therefore, the learned Trial Court was justified in holding that no case for the violation of Section 18(a)(vi) was made out.

¶30

It was submitted that the accused failed to disclose the name of the person from whom he had acquired the drugs, and he had also failed to maintain the record. The accused was charged with violation of Sections 18A and 18B of the Drugs Act for failure to disclose the name of the manufacturer and maintain the record. Thus, the learned Trial Court had dealt with the accused as per the provisions of the Act.

¶31

Therefore, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Trial Court; hence, the present petition fails, and it is dismissed.

¶32

A copy of this judgment, along with the records of the learned Courts below, be sent back forthwith.

¶33

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶34

(Rakesh Kainthla) Judge

¶35

11^th November 2025 (Chander)

State of Hp v. Dinesh Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Hp v. Dinesh Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yogita Devi Vs Sanjeev Kumar

Bhajan Dass Vs State of Hp

Dilbag Singh Vs State of Hp

Chiranji Lal Vs State of Hp

Ajay Kumar Vs State of Hp and Another

Santosh Vs State of Hp