Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: drugs and cosmetics act 1940 23 of 1940 section 22 powers of inspectors Court: chhattisgarh Page 1 of about 1 results (0.038 seconds)

K.B. Dadiseth and anr. Vs. J.P. Memorial Centre and ors.

Court : Chhattisgarh

Reported in : 2004(4)MPHT21(CG)

..... 199/2002 for the commission of the offence under section 17c read with section 27a of the drugs and cosmetics act, 1940, before the court of chief judicial magistrate, dantewada have moved this petition under section 482 of the cr.pc being aggrieved by the order dated 15-5-2002 passed by the learned chief judicial magistrate, whereby the learned chief judicial magistrate took cognizance of the offence under section 17c read with section 27a(1) of the drugs and cosmetics act, 1940 against the petitioners as well as respondent nos. ..... therefore, i am of the opinion that the impugned order taking cognizance of the offence punishable under section 17c read with section 27a(1) of the drugs and cosmetics act, 1940 against the petitioners passed by the chief judicial magistrate is perverse and contrary, to law. ..... , 27-4-99 the bathing bar was not included in the list of cosmetics, therefore, proceedings against the petitioners be quashed, as the same being illegal and contrary to the provision of section 34 of the drugs and cosmetics act, 1940.5. ..... he further argued that section 34 of the drugs and cosmetics act, 1940 envisaged that if any offence is committed by a company in that case every person who at the time the offence was committed, was in-charge of, and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence under the act. .....

Anil Kumar Jain Vs. State of Chhattisgarh

Court : Chhattisgarh

..... questioning the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned judgment dated 15-9-2003 affirming the conviction and sentence awarded to the applicant for offence punishable under sections 27 (b) (ii) and 28 of the drugs and cosmetics act, 1940 (henceforth the act, 1940), sole applicant anil kumar jain has laid the instant revision under section 397 read with section 401 of the code of criminal procedure, 1973 (henceforth crpc). 2. ..... drug inspector manmohan molasariya (pw-2), incharge senior drug inspector hargovind koshthi (pw-3) and sample assistant s.k.mukherjee (pw-4), who conducted the search in the shop m/s. ..... a complaint-case (parivad-patra) was filed by manmohan molasariya (pw-2), drug inspector in the court of chief judicial magistrate, dhamtari on 9-4-1999 against (i) present applicant anil kumar jain, incharge of m/s. ..... during inquiry of the said complaint, on 7-10-1998, manmohan molasariya (pw-2), drug inspector along with hargovind koshthi (pw- 3), incharge senior drug inspector and s. k. ..... vide memo dated 8-10-1998 (ex.p-8), the drug inspector sought information from the present applicant regarding purchase bills and details of sale of the seized drugs as also regarding drug licence, but the desired information was not submitted by present applicant anil kumar jain, incharge of m/s. .....

Hindustan Lever Limited and anr. Vs. the State of Chhattisgarh

Court : Chhattisgarh

Reported in : 2010CriLJ552

..... we have cases under the drugs and cosmetics act, 1940 and the prevention of food adulteration act, 1954 involving the same question ..... the provisions of section 17(2) of the act read as follows:any company may, by order in writing, authorize any of its directors or managers (such manager being employed mainly in a managerial or supervisory capacity) to exercise all such powers and take all such steps as may be necessary or expedient to prevent the commission by the company of any offence under this act and may give notice to the local (health) authority, in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed, that it has nominated such director or ..... pankaj agrawal is nominee of the company under section 17(2) of the act for raipur region and the company had sent different copies of letters to the food inspector which the complainant has filed along with the complaint ..... all courts, whether civil or criminal possess, in the absence of any express provision, as inherent in their constitution, all such powers as are necessary to do the right and to undo a wrong in course of administration of justice on the principle 'quando lex aliquid alicui concedit, concedere videtur et id sine quo res ipsa esse non potest' (when the law gives a person anything it gives him ..... is the doctrine which finds expression in the section which merely recognizes and preserves inherent powers of the high courts. ..... exercise of power under section 482 of the code in a case of this nature is the exception and not the .....

Roopan Korwa Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh

Court : Chhattisgarh

..... , (1981) 1 scc 645 : (air 1981 sc 809), the offence under section 18-a of the drugs and cosmetics act (in short drugs act) was punishable under section 28 of the drugs act. ..... briefly stated are as under: 2.1 the prosecution/state filed a charge- sheet for the offence punishable under sections 279, 337 and 338, ipc against the applicant alleging that on 25/09/1996, at about, 3.00 p.m. ..... the instant case, for the offence punishable under section 338, ipc, sentence of fine can be imposed to the extent of rs.1,000/- only and, therefore, imposition of sentence of fine to the extent of rs.5,000/-, in contravention of section 338, ipc, is liable to be set ..... of the supreme court has held that no fine in excess of rs.500/- could be imposed for an offence under section 18-a of the drugs act. 9. ..... section 28 of the drugs act prescribes imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine which may extend to rs.500/- ..... stage, it would be necessary to notice section 338, ipc, which provides as under: section 338- causing grievous hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others ..... 596/1996, convicted the applicant under section 338, ipc and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ..... which, the conviction of the applicant for the offence punishable under section 338 of the indian penal code (hereinafter called as ipc) was maintained by the appellate court, but the, sentence has been reduced to the period undergone by the applicant and imposed fine sentence of rs.5,000/-. 2. .....