High Court Karnataka High Court

Dr Reddy’S Laboratories Ltd Plot vs State At The Instance Of Drugs … on 19 August, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Dr Reddy’S Laboratories Ltd Plot vs State At The Instance Of Drugs … on 19 August, 2008
Author: V Jagannathan
. ' " :Dr.:é;%I3mi%:%i/f<~%ady4  ' %%%%% W '
' V , (3't1air1nuan'i£s4I}.ircctcr 01' Dr.Re:dc1y's
*LabcratGz.'1'_&$ I.1;d'.- Pint N0. 16,IDA

VV _ Pvt Ltd,  '7£Z)fi'i<::e "?-1-2'? Amceqwt
' ~ ,. « .4 _ Efifjyderabagi 5000 18.

g  k';'~:.1m=:~i K;Safish Ready,

. ._  Director of fir. RedE:':'1'i'€:)N. z1fJ0.V%?;84?Si  1

BETWEEN :

Dr.Reddy's     
Plot No. 16, .§{DA'_'K6th:gjr,   '
Mehboob Naga1*»..}3£1'1st1'ict,,.C3'/o. M"/s 
Girish Labe:at:3I*ie§fi.:Pxrt;' ~ Ltci. Réigx "
Office 7,~1----2'? A111::t::r'pet,.._Hy,derabad
5000 16,"'~:fr3p2fe$.;€:Iit<'JCl .by. 3  _ 4 " 

its Company Sacretazy ,.  '

Mr. V.VishWanath.   "

Kotfiur,  Mehboob Nagar
Distxict, £3/:2 -M15 Girish Laboratories

Pvt Ltd, Reg, Ofiice 7« L2'? Amecrmt
Hyderabad 503016.

 Petitienerfi

 



{ By IBVA Assoeiates Sri K.G.Raghava1:,  " .

AND:

1. State at the instance .f7 * _'c@rpct

Hyde:jaLi._a¢1V5G0O.}6."_' H "  

. . .Respondents

(*3?  $i.I3§9;b:éfishetty, HCGP. )

  flied {#83482 of Cr.P.(;':.
 . :sé}:i:. aside the order datad 31.033006

§ags¢a b3§.'t}§§3:;Pr1* JMFC in CC Nmfllfi/06 taking

_  ' 'gogaiiafiég  an Qfffiflfifi under parafifiz 9 & i4«{1}
 x§I._71;Ligé" (PIice Cantml) Grater 1993 Elvis sx:=:ct:ion
_   _A3(12;(<:;f7 of Essenfial Ccmmodity Act 1955 P/U/S
%  -----.' §'(§§{A)(ii) of Essential Commedities Act R/W para 24
'4 DPQG $95 and also the order 9:' issuing summons

'4 via the petitierzers wide Axmexure 'A' and dismiss the

comylaint in CC Nc:.,71(}[{}6 pending on the fiia of Pr}.
JMFQ, C,':u1harga so far as the §.'1€1'iS concemad



This petition coming on for orders this day; "1316

court made {he following :
O R D E R

Haard learned Government P1ead£:r.’fQ$V 1’sé »

and the counsel appears for ” w ‘V

2. This petition under .s'<:e:_tio11 4;8:"2 of

in question the cognxzan' cc court

and 'of éiixnmbns to the petitioners
and is that the petiticner has

been BECELAC capsulm (for

U V us~";}~' arid the notifaczaijon dated

by the NPPA is far faxing the

ii} respect of the capsnlw which am

mea;r7§ i- for Thempentiiz Use and the:-efom the

Vcgfigtenfion 3f the mtitiener is that the capsuim that

. V. 'fis manxfiactmed by it am aunt meant for Propizylatztic

Use and accardirlgly the gazette notification in
quastian is net appfiazfgbie to the case ef the

miiticinazz T§1emf<:r&, $2115: comzanae taken by the

%

4

tria}. Ceurt arid issuing summons is 11nsustaiI1abié–,i11

law. The further geund urged are that ”

under the Essentia} Commodities Act ‘ _

para-9 and 14(1) of the

1995 are to be tried by spa¢ia1’e§m¢ ask A

12AA 9f the EC Act. _ _ ‘_ I

3. Having thus, véansidéifid Qounds
relying on the Apex to tficrein

and the stag1d’i;9;}{e:1:3-.by herein that the

Caps;i.;1e*« meant for Prophyiactic
use anti Vftizfx Use, the question 0f

pfioé ” under the notification dated

24. Emame appiicable wili net: arista.

. tzma’ 1 smart {night 11:: have axamixmd {ha

va¥’iQ1§s.:_§;i§:1exux€s produced by the petitioner befere

” to issue summons. AS such, the ordar of

¥;h$ Magistrate issuixzg summons cannet be sustained

‘ in Raw. Apart {mm this, ether éefect naticed is that:

the trial cuurt; has not perused the znataziais placed

Kn-»:”k.o&

by the fiwiritianar 311:1 the court even refe to them
A.

3%”

5

«L ‘7WW ;

or statifig that it has taken cogxiizancze of i:h§~~s.’:l}’Vfi::{_}_.(:tj:_,_’-‘»’se~£7
{G tria} ceurt mechanically ordered 3 ‘ ‘
the petitieners and for this Elie

the triai court cammt be laW., *- : .. 2

4. For the afaresaid -»pctitio:1v–.is.-éillowed
and proceeding ‘% CC’ ordering

$u.mmons to” V asidé.

sax: