Search Judgments

Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (the Act) – Sections 18(a)(vi), 18-B, 22(1)(cca), 27(d), 28-A; Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 (the Rules) – Rule 74, Schedule M, Schedule U; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) – Sections 468, 482, 32(2), 36-A, 36-AB – This appeal challenged the Himachal Pradesh High Court’s dismissal of a petition seeking to quash criminal proceedings against M/s SBS Biotech and its officials. The appellants were prosecuted for allegedly contravening the Act by failing to maintain prescribed manufacturing records (Schedule M & U) and furnishing incomplete information regarding the drug Pseudoephedrine.

The appellants contended that the offence fell under Section 18-B, punishable under Section 28-A (max. one year imprisonment), rendering the complaint time-barred under Section 468 Cr.P.C.

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 302, 304 Part II, 300 Exception 1 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C) – Section 428 – The appellant challenged his conviction under Section 302 IPC for the death of the deceased, handed down by the Additional District and Sessions Judge. The prosecution alleged that due to a previous enmity concerning a common land dispute, the appellant (A1) fatally assaulted the deceased with a wooden log. The Trial Court convicted A1, while acquitting A2 and A3.

The appellant argued that he acted in self-defense after the deceased, who was intoxicated, initiated an assault with a stick, thus rendering the charge under Section 302 IPC inapplicable.

Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (EPF Act) – Section 7A and 2(f), and Employees’ Provident Fund Scheme (EPF Scheme) – Para 26B. – M/s.Seyadu Beedi Company challenged EPF Authority orders demanding provident fund contributions for approximately 800 beedi rollers. The company contended these workers were independent contractors associated with M/s. Rajan Traders, not its direct employees, and therefore not subject to the EPF Act.

Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (E.C. Act) – Sections 3 and 7 – Appellants Manoj and Prakash were convicted by lower courts under the E.C. Act for the alleged unauthorised possession and black-marketing of government quota cement on March 24, 1994. The prosecution asserted that this cement was illegally diverted from supplies intended for public works.

(Appellate Rights of Complainant in NI Act Cases)

The Negotiable Instruments Act Section 138 of t, 1881 (NI Act) - The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) Sections 372 and 378 - The Court referenced a recent coordinate Bench judgment, 'Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran', which held that a complainant under Section 138 NI Act is a 'victim' entitled to appeal an acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC, without needing special leave under Section 378(4) CrPC.

However, the present Bench observed that the 'Celestium Financial' judgment did not consider prior authoritative decisions, 'Satya Pal Singh vs.

The Indian Stamp Act Section 36 – Plaintiff appealed against a trial court judgment that granted a personal money decree but denied a preliminary decree to proceed against the property. The plaintiff asserted that Defendant 1 borrowed Rs. 40 lakhs, executing promissory notes and creating an equitable mortgage by depositing title deeds, confirmed by a letter (Ex.A2) on 18.09.2009. The trial court declined the preliminary decree, deeming Ex.A2 invalid for mortgage creation due to non-registration, citing the Indian Registration Act.

Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (APCS (CC&A) Rules) – Rule 20, Rule 9(x) proviso – The case involves the dismissal of K. Rajaiah, a court attender, for unauthorized absence and submitting a fabricated medical certificate. The appellant was absent from August 3-7, 2017, due to illness and later submitted a medical certificate (Ex. P-7) from Dr.