Crime Today News
The Uttarakhand High Court has quashed the summons issued by a trial court against Patanjali Ayurved, Divya Pharmacy, Baba Ramdev and Balkrishna for publishing misleading advertisements to promote various products, including Coronil.
The single-judge Bench of Justice Vivek Bharti Sharma held that no expert report had been filed with the complaint to show that the claims made in the advertisements were false or misleading.
A petitioner firm could not be prosecuted merely on the basis of a letter asking it to remove the advertisement without specific allegation that the false claim about the drug constituted offences punishable under Sections 3, 4 & 7 of the Drugs and Magical Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954.
The High Court further said that no report of experts was placed on record to verify the falsity and misleading nature of the claims.
There was no occasion for the trial court to take the cognizance and summon the petitioners to face trial, it added.
The single-judge Bench also termed as misplaced, the State’s reference to the Supreme Court’s observation that Ramdev and Balkrishna had committed contempt of court by publishing the misleading advertisements.
It said the High Court had to see whether the impugned order of cognisance and summoning passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar on the complaint case filed by the State was lawful, proper, correct, and legal or suffered from any illegality. This petition was to be decided at the anvil of this test only. Inviting the observation of the Apex Court, while deciding this petition under Section 528 of BNSS, shall be extraneous, it added.
The government of Uttarakhand had filed a complaint in 2024 against Patanjali and Divya Pharmacy, along with its owners – Ramdev and Balkrishna, accusing them of committing 20 offences between 2022 and 2024.
On April 16, 2024, the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Haridwar issued summons to the accused. The trial court order was then challenged before the High Court.
The Counsel appearing for the State argued that the complaint nowhere stated that Patanjali’s promotional videos or the advertisements were false in respect of the efficacy of its medicines. It was also conceded that the complaint did not show how the advertisements of the drugs were misleading.
The single-judge Bench said there was not even a single observation to show application of judicial mind by the trial court while taking cognisance under Section 190(1)(a) of CrPC and summoning the accused. The trial court order also did not specify the evidence available to take cognisance in the matter.
The trial court could not have taken cognisance of the offences as the period of limitation had already expired, it added.
📰 Crime Today News is proudly sponsored by DRYFRUIT & CO – A Brand by eFabby Global LLC
Design & Developed by Yes Mom Hosting
