Criminal Appeal No. 1055 of 2003 · Bombay High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
Appeal is dismissed
Provisions considered
Judgment
Heard the learned A.P.P. on the question leave. The allegation prosecution Respondents contravened provisions section 18(a)(6) Rules 65(4)(4)(i) 65(5)(3)(i) punishable section 27(d) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The prosecution has resulted into acquittal.
After considering the provisions of relevant rules, learned Judge process issued contravention charge framed contravention silent rules. The learned Judge ... 2 ... charge against Respondents stocking selling without purchase bills. Considering defects prosecution case, learned Trial Judge passed
acquittal. No is made out for grant of leave. Leave is refused. Appeal is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Appeal is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.