Present: Mr. R.S.Rai Senior Advocate with Vs. State of Haryana Semantic Analysis

Semantic Analysis by spaCy

Present: Mr. R.S.Rai Senior Advocate with Vs. State of Haryana

Decided On : Dec-20-2012

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Notice (8): Undefined index: topics [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36]Code Context

$shops2 = $shops['topics'];
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Present: Mr. R.S.Rai Senior Advocate with Vs. State of Haryana Semantic Analysis',
	'shops' => array(
		'LAW' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Section 18(c',
			(int) 1 => 'Section 27(b)(ii).section 18(A',
			(int) 2 => 'Section 28',
			(int) 3 => 'Section 17A Rule 125A',
			(int) 4 => 'Section 27(a',
			(int) 5 => 'Section 27(b',
			(int) 6 => 'Section 28',
			(int) 7 => 'Section 27(b',
			(int) 8 => 'Section 27(b'
		),
		'DATE' => array(
			(int) 0 => '2012',
			(int) 1 => '2012',
			(int) 2 => '1940',
			(int) 3 => '2012',
			(int) 4 => 'December 20, 2012'
		),
		'ORG' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'the High Court of Punjab',
			(int) 1 => 'Chandigarh Crl',
			(int) 2 => 'Haryana .......',
			(int) 3 => 'the Drugs and Cosmetics Act',
			(int) 4 => 'Trial Court',
			(int) 5 => 'The Appellate Court',
			(int) 6 => 'Crl',
			(int) 7 => 'PW-2'
		),
		'PERSON' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Haryana',
			(int) 1 => 'Mehboob',
			(int) 2 => 'Versus State',
			(int) 3 => 'R.S.Rai',
			(int) 4 => 'Gautam Dutt',
			(int) 5 => 'J. Petitioner',
			(int) 6 => 'Parjinder Singh',
			(int) 7 => 'Tirath Raj',
			(int) 8 => 'Drugs Licence'
		),
		'CARDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => '12.2012',
			(int) 1 => '18.1.2011/22.1.2011',
			(int) 2 => '28',
			(int) 3 => '11.12.2012',
			(int) 4 => '30.9.2003',
			(int) 5 => '17'
		),
		'PRODUCT' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Schedule R-1'
		),
		'GPE' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'IV'
		)
	),
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1046974',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Present: Mr. R.S.Rai Senior Advocate with',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Present: Mr. R.S.Rai Senior Advocate with Vs. State of Haryana',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2012-12-20',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>Crl.</p><p> Revision No.4122 of 2012 (O&M) -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl.</p><p> Revision No.4122 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision:</p><p>20. 12.2012.</p><p> Dr.</p><p> Mehboob .......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Senior Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate for the petitioner.</p><p> **** SABINA, J.</p><p> Petitioner was tried for offence punishable under Section 18(c) punishable under Section 27(b)(ii).section 18(A) punishable under Section 28, 18(a) (I) read with Section 17A Rule 125A and Schedule R-1 punishable under Section 27(a) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ('Act' for short).The Trial Court vide judgment/order dated 18.1.2011/22.1.2011 ordered the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Section 27(b) and 28 of the Act.</p><p> Aggrieved against the said judgment/order of conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred an appeal.</p><p> The Appellate Court vide judgment dated 11.12.2012 acquitted the petitioner qua offence punishable under Section 28 of the Act.</p><p> However, the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Section 27(b) of the Act was upheld.</p><p> Hence, the present petition.</p><p> Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 30.9.2003, the District Drugs Inspector along with others inspected the shop/clinic of the petitioner.</p><p> The petitioner was present in his shop.</p><p> Petitioner was found giving medicines to his patients after charging the requisite fee from them.</p><p> Petitioner had stocked number of allopathic medicines although he was not having a Crl.</p><p> Revision No.4122 of 2012 (O&M) -2- certificate with regard to possession of allopathic medicines not had any licnece to store the said medicines for sale.</p><p> The petitioner was found in possession of 17 different allopathic drugs including the disposable syringes, needles and IV set for sale and distribution for the purpose of re-use.</p><p> After hearing the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves dismissal.</p><p> In order to prove its case, prosecution examined Parjinder Singh as PW-1, Rakesh Dahiya as PW-2 and Dr.</p><p> Tirath Raj as PW-3.</p><p> The said witnesses duly proved the prosecution case.</p><p> The petitioner was, thus, in possession of allopathic drugs although he was not having any requisite certificate or Drugs Licence in this regard.</p><p> Both the Courts below, after appreciating the evidence led during trial, have thus rightly ordered the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Section 27(b) of the Act.</p><p> Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any misreading of evidence by the Courts below.</p><p> No ground for interference is made out.</p><p> Dismissed.</p><p> (SABINA) JUDGE December 20, 2012 Gurpreet',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'State of Haryana',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1046974'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Present: Mr. R.S.Rai Senior Advocate with Vs. State of Haryana Semantic Analysis'
$shops = array(
	'LAW' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Section 18(c',
		(int) 1 => 'Section 27(b)(ii).section 18(A',
		(int) 2 => 'Section 28',
		(int) 3 => 'Section 17A Rule 125A',
		(int) 4 => 'Section 27(a',
		(int) 5 => 'Section 27(b',
		(int) 6 => 'Section 28',
		(int) 7 => 'Section 27(b',
		(int) 8 => 'Section 27(b'
	),
	'DATE' => array(
		(int) 0 => '2012',
		(int) 1 => '2012',
		(int) 2 => '1940',
		(int) 3 => '2012',
		(int) 4 => 'December 20, 2012'
	),
	'ORG' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'the High Court of Punjab',
		(int) 1 => 'Chandigarh Crl',
		(int) 2 => 'Haryana .......',
		(int) 3 => 'the Drugs and Cosmetics Act',
		(int) 4 => 'Trial Court',
		(int) 5 => 'The Appellate Court',
		(int) 6 => 'Crl',
		(int) 7 => 'PW-2'
	),
	'PERSON' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Haryana',
		(int) 1 => 'Mehboob',
		(int) 2 => 'Versus State',
		(int) 3 => 'R.S.Rai',
		(int) 4 => 'Gautam Dutt',
		(int) 5 => 'J. Petitioner',
		(int) 6 => 'Parjinder Singh',
		(int) 7 => 'Tirath Raj',
		(int) 8 => 'Drugs Licence'
	),
	'CARDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => '12.2012',
		(int) 1 => '18.1.2011/22.1.2011',
		(int) 2 => '28',
		(int) 3 => '11.12.2012',
		(int) 4 => '30.9.2003',
		(int) 5 => '17'
	),
	'PRODUCT' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Schedule R-1'
	),
	'GPE' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'IV'
	)
)
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1046974',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Present: Mr. R.S.Rai Senior Advocate with',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Present: Mr. R.S.Rai Senior Advocate with Vs. State of Haryana',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2012-12-20',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>Crl.</p><p> Revision No.4122 of 2012 (O&M) -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl.</p><p> Revision No.4122 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision:</p><p>20. 12.2012.</p><p> Dr.</p><p> Mehboob .......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Senior Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate for the petitioner.</p><p> **** SABINA, J.</p><p> Petitioner was tried for offence punishable under Section 18(c) punishable under Section 27(b)(ii).section 18(A) punishable under Section 28, 18(a) (I) read with Section 17A Rule 125A and Schedule R-1 punishable under Section 27(a) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ('Act' for short).The Trial Court vide judgment/order dated 18.1.2011/22.1.2011 ordered the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Section 27(b) and 28 of the Act.</p><p> Aggrieved against the said judgment/order of conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred an appeal.</p><p> The Appellate Court vide judgment dated 11.12.2012 acquitted the petitioner qua offence punishable under Section 28 of the Act.</p><p> However, the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Section 27(b) of the Act was upheld.</p><p> Hence, the present petition.</p><p> Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 30.9.2003, the District Drugs Inspector along with others inspected the shop/clinic of the petitioner.</p><p> The petitioner was present in his shop.</p><p> Petitioner was found giving medicines to his patients after charging the requisite fee from them.</p><p> Petitioner had stocked number of allopathic medicines although he was not having a Crl.</p><p> Revision No.4122 of 2012 (O&M) -2- certificate with regard to possession of allopathic medicines not had any licnece to store the said medicines for sale.</p><p> The petitioner was found in possession of 17 different allopathic drugs including the disposable syringes, needles and IV set for sale and distribution for the purpose of re-use.</p><p> After hearing the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves dismissal.</p><p> In order to prove its case, prosecution examined Parjinder Singh as PW-1, Rakesh Dahiya as PW-2 and Dr.</p><p> Tirath Raj as PW-3.</p><p> The said witnesses duly proved the prosecution case.</p><p> The petitioner was, thus, in possession of allopathic drugs although he was not having any requisite certificate or Drugs Licence in this regard.</p><p> Both the Courts below, after appreciating the evidence led during trial, have thus rightly ordered the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Section 27(b) of the Act.</p><p> Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any misreading of evidence by the Courts below.</p><p> No ground for interference is made out.</p><p> Dismissed.</p><p> (SABINA) JUDGE December 20, 2012 Gurpreet',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'State of Haryana',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1046974'
)
$pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'
include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Warning (2): Invalid argument supplied for foreach() [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39]Code Context//$shops = $shops['entities'];

foreach ($shops2 as $key => $val) {
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Present: Mr. R.S.Rai Senior Advocate with Vs. State of Haryana Semantic Analysis',
	'shops' => array(
		'LAW' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Section 18(c',
			(int) 1 => 'Section 27(b)(ii).section 18(A',
			(int) 2 => 'Section 28',
			(int) 3 => 'Section 17A Rule 125A',
			(int) 4 => 'Section 27(a',
			(int) 5 => 'Section 27(b',
			(int) 6 => 'Section 28',
			(int) 7 => 'Section 27(b',
			(int) 8 => 'Section 27(b'
		),
		'DATE' => array(
			(int) 0 => '2012',
			(int) 1 => '2012',
			(int) 2 => '1940',
			(int) 3 => '2012',
			(int) 4 => 'December 20, 2012'
		),
		'ORG' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'the High Court of Punjab',
			(int) 1 => 'Chandigarh Crl',
			(int) 2 => 'Haryana .......',
			(int) 3 => 'the Drugs and Cosmetics Act',
			(int) 4 => 'Trial Court',
			(int) 5 => 'The Appellate Court',
			(int) 6 => 'Crl',
			(int) 7 => 'PW-2'
		),
		'PERSON' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Haryana',
			(int) 1 => 'Mehboob',
			(int) 2 => 'Versus State',
			(int) 3 => 'R.S.Rai',
			(int) 4 => 'Gautam Dutt',
			(int) 5 => 'J. Petitioner',
			(int) 6 => 'Parjinder Singh',
			(int) 7 => 'Tirath Raj',
			(int) 8 => 'Drugs Licence'
		),
		'CARDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => '12.2012',
			(int) 1 => '18.1.2011/22.1.2011',
			(int) 2 => '28',
			(int) 3 => '11.12.2012',
			(int) 4 => '30.9.2003',
			(int) 5 => '17'
		),
		'PRODUCT' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Schedule R-1'
		),
		'GPE' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'IV'
		)
	),
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1046974',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Present: Mr. R.S.Rai Senior Advocate with',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Present: Mr. R.S.Rai Senior Advocate with Vs. State of Haryana',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2012-12-20',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>Crl.</p><p> Revision No.4122 of 2012 (O&M) -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl.</p><p> Revision No.4122 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision:</p><p>20. 12.2012.</p><p> Dr.</p><p> Mehboob .......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Senior Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate for the petitioner.</p><p> **** SABINA, J.</p><p> Petitioner was tried for offence punishable under Section 18(c) punishable under Section 27(b)(ii).section 18(A) punishable under Section 28, 18(a) (I) read with Section 17A Rule 125A and Schedule R-1 punishable under Section 27(a) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ('Act' for short).The Trial Court vide judgment/order dated 18.1.2011/22.1.2011 ordered the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Section 27(b) and 28 of the Act.</p><p> Aggrieved against the said judgment/order of conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred an appeal.</p><p> The Appellate Court vide judgment dated 11.12.2012 acquitted the petitioner qua offence punishable under Section 28 of the Act.</p><p> However, the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Section 27(b) of the Act was upheld.</p><p> Hence, the present petition.</p><p> Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 30.9.2003, the District Drugs Inspector along with others inspected the shop/clinic of the petitioner.</p><p> The petitioner was present in his shop.</p><p> Petitioner was found giving medicines to his patients after charging the requisite fee from them.</p><p> Petitioner had stocked number of allopathic medicines although he was not having a Crl.</p><p> Revision No.4122 of 2012 (O&M) -2- certificate with regard to possession of allopathic medicines not had any licnece to store the said medicines for sale.</p><p> The petitioner was found in possession of 17 different allopathic drugs including the disposable syringes, needles and IV set for sale and distribution for the purpose of re-use.</p><p> After hearing the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves dismissal.</p><p> In order to prove its case, prosecution examined Parjinder Singh as PW-1, Rakesh Dahiya as PW-2 and Dr.</p><p> Tirath Raj as PW-3.</p><p> The said witnesses duly proved the prosecution case.</p><p> The petitioner was, thus, in possession of allopathic drugs although he was not having any requisite certificate or Drugs Licence in this regard.</p><p> Both the Courts below, after appreciating the evidence led during trial, have thus rightly ordered the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Section 27(b) of the Act.</p><p> Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any misreading of evidence by the Courts below.</p><p> No ground for interference is made out.</p><p> Dismissed.</p><p> (SABINA) JUDGE December 20, 2012 Gurpreet',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'State of Haryana',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1046974'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Present: Mr. R.S.Rai Senior Advocate with Vs. State of Haryana Semantic Analysis'
$shops = array(
	'LAW' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Section 18(c',
		(int) 1 => 'Section 27(b)(ii).section 18(A',
		(int) 2 => 'Section 28',
		(int) 3 => 'Section 17A Rule 125A',
		(int) 4 => 'Section 27(a',
		(int) 5 => 'Section 27(b',
		(int) 6 => 'Section 28',
		(int) 7 => 'Section 27(b',
		(int) 8 => 'Section 27(b'
	),
	'DATE' => array(
		(int) 0 => '2012',
		(int) 1 => '2012',
		(int) 2 => '1940',
		(int) 3 => '2012',
		(int) 4 => 'December 20, 2012'
	),
	'ORG' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'the High Court of Punjab',
		(int) 1 => 'Chandigarh Crl',
		(int) 2 => 'Haryana .......',
		(int) 3 => 'the Drugs and Cosmetics Act',
		(int) 4 => 'Trial Court',
		(int) 5 => 'The Appellate Court',
		(int) 6 => 'Crl',
		(int) 7 => 'PW-2'
	),
	'PERSON' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Haryana',
		(int) 1 => 'Mehboob',
		(int) 2 => 'Versus State',
		(int) 3 => 'R.S.Rai',
		(int) 4 => 'Gautam Dutt',
		(int) 5 => 'J. Petitioner',
		(int) 6 => 'Parjinder Singh',
		(int) 7 => 'Tirath Raj',
		(int) 8 => 'Drugs Licence'
	),
	'CARDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => '12.2012',
		(int) 1 => '18.1.2011/22.1.2011',
		(int) 2 => '28',
		(int) 3 => '11.12.2012',
		(int) 4 => '30.9.2003',
		(int) 5 => '17'
	),
	'PRODUCT' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Schedule R-1'
	),
	'GPE' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'IV'
	)
)
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1046974',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Present: Mr. R.S.Rai Senior Advocate with',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Present: Mr. R.S.Rai Senior Advocate with Vs. State of Haryana',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2012-12-20',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>Crl.</p><p> Revision No.4122 of 2012 (O&M) -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl.</p><p> Revision No.4122 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision:</p><p>20. 12.2012.</p><p> Dr.</p><p> Mehboob .......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Senior Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate for the petitioner.</p><p> **** SABINA, J.</p><p> Petitioner was tried for offence punishable under Section 18(c) punishable under Section 27(b)(ii).section 18(A) punishable under Section 28, 18(a) (I) read with Section 17A Rule 125A and Schedule R-1 punishable under Section 27(a) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ('Act' for short).The Trial Court vide judgment/order dated 18.1.2011/22.1.2011 ordered the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Section 27(b) and 28 of the Act.</p><p> Aggrieved against the said judgment/order of conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred an appeal.</p><p> The Appellate Court vide judgment dated 11.12.2012 acquitted the petitioner qua offence punishable under Section 28 of the Act.</p><p> However, the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Section 27(b) of the Act was upheld.</p><p> Hence, the present petition.</p><p> Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 30.9.2003, the District Drugs Inspector along with others inspected the shop/clinic of the petitioner.</p><p> The petitioner was present in his shop.</p><p> Petitioner was found giving medicines to his patients after charging the requisite fee from them.</p><p> Petitioner had stocked number of allopathic medicines although he was not having a Crl.</p><p> Revision No.4122 of 2012 (O&M) -2- certificate with regard to possession of allopathic medicines not had any licnece to store the said medicines for sale.</p><p> The petitioner was found in possession of 17 different allopathic drugs including the disposable syringes, needles and IV set for sale and distribution for the purpose of re-use.</p><p> After hearing the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves dismissal.</p><p> In order to prove its case, prosecution examined Parjinder Singh as PW-1, Rakesh Dahiya as PW-2 and Dr.</p><p> Tirath Raj as PW-3.</p><p> The said witnesses duly proved the prosecution case.</p><p> The petitioner was, thus, in possession of allopathic drugs although he was not having any requisite certificate or Drugs Licence in this regard.</p><p> Both the Courts below, after appreciating the evidence led during trial, have thus rightly ordered the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Section 27(b) of the Act.</p><p> Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any misreading of evidence by the Courts below.</p><p> No ground for interference is made out.</p><p> Dismissed.</p><p> (SABINA) JUDGE December 20, 2012 Gurpreet',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'State of Haryana',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1046974'
)
$pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'
$shops2 = null
include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

LAW: Section 18(c, Section 27(b)(ii).section 18(A, Section 28, Section 17A Rule 125A, Section 27(a, Section 27(b, Section 28, Section 27(b, Section 27(b

DATE: 2012, 2012, 1940, 2012, December 20, 2012

ORG: the High Court of Punjab, Chandigarh Crl, Haryana ......., the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, Trial Court, The Appellate Court, Crl, PW-2

PERSON: Haryana, Mehboob, Versus State, R.S.Rai, Gautam Dutt, J. Petitioner, Parjinder Singh, Tirath Raj, Drugs Licence

CARDINAL: 12.2012, 18.1.2011/22.1.2011, 28, 11.12.2012, 30.9.2003, 17

PRODUCT: Schedule R-1

GPE: IV