[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
India vs M/S Nuclotee Remedies Pvt. Ltd And ... on 8 December, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
`
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
SL. proceedings or
Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
CRLR No.832 of 2025
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Mr. Akshay Jain, Advocate holding brief of Mr.
Himanshu Pal, Advocate for the revisionists.
2. Mr. Lalit Sharma, Deputy Solicitor General for the
Union of India.
3. This criminal revision has been filed under Section
438/441 of B.N.S.S. 2023, whereby the revisionist has put
to challenge the judgment and order dated 03.11.2025,
passed by learned Special Sessions Judge, Udham Singh
Nagar, in Special Sessions Trial No.149 of 2025, Union of
India Vs. M/s Nuclotee Remedies Pvt. Ltd and others,
whereby the application of the revisionist against framing of
the charges has been rejected and consequently the order
for framing of the charges have been passed.
4. Learned counsel for the revisionists submits that the
prosecution launched by the Union of India through
Inspector notified by it under Section 21 of The Drugs and
Cosmetics Act, 1940, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act")
(23 of 1940) dated 13.10.2014 is bad and cannot sustain
and the entire proceedings deserves to be set aside on the
sole ground.
5. In order to buttress his argument, learned counsel for
the revisionists has drawn attention of this Court to the
Statement and Object of the Act and contended that the
powers provided under Chapter III of the Act are to be
exercised by the Central Government and the powers under
Section under Chapter IV of the Act shall be exercised by
the State Government.
6. Learned counsel for the revisionists has submitted
that the complaint has been filed against the revisionists
under Section 27(b)(i) and 27(d) of the Act.
7. This section undisputedly found place in Chapter IV of
the Act.
8. Since the aforesaid sections falls under Chapter IV of
the Act, therefore, prosecution should have been launched
by the Inspector by the State Government and not by the
Central Government.
9. Per contra, learned Deputy Solicitor General for the
Union of India relied upon the notification dated 13.10.2014
to submit that there is no illegality in the complaint having
been filed by the Union of India through the Inspector
appointed under aforesaid notification namely, Sandeep
Kumar.
10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
perusal of the provisions and as well as the notification
supplied by learned counsel for the Union of India, this
Court is of the view that the matter requires deliberation, for
which a counter affidavit is required.
11. Learned counsel for the respondent-Union of India
may file counter affidavit within four weeks.
12. List this case on 24.02.2026.
13. In the meantime, proceedings of Special Sessions Trial
No.149 of 2025, Union of India Vs. M/s Nuclotee Remedies
Pvt. Ltd and others, shall remain stayed.
14. Stay Application (IA No.1 of 2025) stands disposed-off.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
08.12.2025
SK
