IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAJSA I _
CIRCUPF BENCH, GULBARGA %
DATED: THIS THE mm mi-2? 0§f%AiIfi}U$%1*'«éc»a%3j%%L' ; 7
THE HQNBLE an JAuAi§1€A'friAN
cm. H
BETWEEN: % L V
1. M/ s Cheryl
Plot no.§i'E:2..Ix"1A:i__1{'_;E";~.=_;z;.t<4:
Kundaim._ 15.'. «.
Regd O3? Péirsi_anVApa'r£_1n§:z3ts
PIot"n<:)§434 ,_ (}ri;e§1I1d_. Flgqr,
v.P.Rc,a¢d,%%Andnezi %
ME1mb8.i"400 V "
R; by & Directors
%
% s;g Thakkar
. fs Chwyl Laboratories
" Li_1:k'i.tir:€i,
R}? at »No."»'? '1, Kama! 69,
Waikefihwar Rmd,
u m;mba.i_ 400 006.
3} VCi1aind1'esh Thakker
ES] 0 Vallabhadas Thakkar
' Chairman Mfs Cheryl Laboratories
Pvt. Limited,
R/at No.71, Karma} 69,
Walkeshwar Road,
Mumbai 400 006.
4. Mukunci Thakkcr
S/0 Va1labhadas%
Chairman M/s Chc1y1Labo1'a:orieszfiv '
Pvt. Limited,
R/at No.71, Kamal 69,
Walkeshwar Road,
Mumbai 400 006.
% (By sri.3:). Prabhakar, %'Adv §%.a{h%se:§i)A%
AND:
State at the y '
The Drugs Inspector 9;;
Gulbarga CiI*t:ié,'- T. . ff,
chmanga Bldg. %
S.B.Co11cge Raasci,
vidyanagar, - %
Ciulbarga 535 103.
. 2 RESPONDENT
{§5r_ K. Babshetty, HCGP)
12/3 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to
the: 'mam. .' gs in C.C»No.708/G6 on the fiie cxf
% M %A*'¢;;;-mi-*.r:. C4' ($15.91;) & JMFC-if Court, C.'ruIbarga
Tffisflgretition coming on for hearing this day, the
Ixiade the foilcrwingz
me ma! court did not apply its mind
' " Qrocess and there was no indication ef
having taken cogxizanee of the efienee
_ aga1'nst the petitioners. Secondly, it is
ORDER
Heard the learned Gevemmem Plméfléier fj_ef’ei*’ K
State. None appears for the peté:t.i51ie1*s. -3 9
2. This petition L’
by the trial court in fiefifioners in
respect of the before the trial
court aflegingefifences para 9 and
para 14{1)VofADf§i9g$% 1995 r/W 3(2)
(e) of ~j]Act 1955 punishable
under Sectien =’7(}V) Act I’/W para 24 of
91900 1995. V’ % %
. V. 3-. v1F3;€E”’§§3’3’iti9neF’$véfi«fiVance is that, the trial court
was: 21131′ verIft:;:{‘i11 “£35-ueixlg process to them based en the
2%
J’
coiitended in the petitian that the Netification is
the basis for lodgng the complaint was also’ %
matter of the decisien before the PtmjabVv R
Court in W.P.No.13677/99
court: quashed the Nofificafiag ezafi’ ,
said uotificafion did fiat _j;;mn;isions of
Drugs (Price v% short)
punishabk: 31/ §;V.’;((1)(g)'{i~i§ Act
and therc-§_i’r21″§».’V:*: when the very
same the trial
court could nazit Ixéfire’ to the petitioners.
4. Hajay§i:1g..goIie”»£tji’cii1giéL tixe said gound urged in
flalge the decision of the Punjab &
in AIR 2902 Punjab &
placaci on more] and the said
lagidiiié that the fixation of the price being not
2 with the criteriozrs laid dawn Imder the
}f
Drug Poiicy $994, the court set aside the said
Notification. This was in Ivesmct of the drug “Diosmin”.
5. in the instant case aiso the
allegations is with regard to the
Tablets” which is a form1flatien e»iV’
and therefore when the yexy Notificetidny L’
quashed by the Court in as V
being in violation or c:i£e;–iex:e%%:§id%%dowe% mm the
said policy issuedfiyw in
the to have applied its
mind the [‘i;.1r§c:.» complaint and by not doing
so, the eezlft A1’1aé””V1,*a:echaI1ica}1y orciered issue of
“V V’ ..1;o¢3f1e
this, on geing through the order
trial eeurt on 31.3.06, it is aim clear that
V. fi1e~- court: did net even bother 1:0 kxsk inte the
averments, but instead it emly said, register
Wt:.he case and issue process and does not even say that it
%
‘ 1
has perused the complaint materiai and
cegiizance of the ofienm.
7. Under such
of the trial court cannot: £0398′ gag, L’
and it is accordingly set .’ti”m,_AAp¢;tition is
allowed. 3 % A ‘