M/S SALUS PHARMACEAUTICALS AND OTHERS(Not Applicable) vs UNION OF INDIA(Not Applicable) Advocate - ASGI, ,ASGI — CRMMO/930/2023

Case under Code of Criminal Procedure Section 482. Disposed: --Disposed Off on 07th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HPHC010307992023

Filing Number

CRMMO/7072/2023

Filing Date

21-Aug-2023

Registration No

CRMMO/930/2023

Registration Date

12-Sep-2023

Judge

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma

Coram

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma

Bench Type

Single

Judicial Branch

Criminal Section

Decision Date

07-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--Disposed Off

Last updated 02-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Criminal Procedure Section 482

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.M/S SALUS PHARMACEAUTICALS AND OTHERS(Not Applicable)

    Adv. Anuj Nag,Hakam Bhardwaj,Hakam Bhardwaj, ,Hakam Bhardwaj

  2. 2.Atul Garg(Not Applicable)

    Adv. Anuj Nag

  3. 3.Abhinav Garg(Not Applicable)

    Adv. Anuj Nag

  4. 4.Meenakshi Joshi(Not Applicable)

    Adv. Anuj Nag

  5. 5.Krishan Joshi(Not Applicable)

    Adv. Anuj Nag

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.UNION OF INDIA(Not Applicable) Advocate - ASGI, ,ASGI

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 07-May-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep SharmaView PDF

    Case Summary: M/S SALUS PHARMACEUTICALS AND OTHERS v. UNION OF INDIA (CRMMO 930/2023) Court Decision (07.05.2026): The Himachal Pradesh High Court quashed the criminal complaint and cognizance order against the petitioners (pharmaceutical company and its partners) under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. Key Reasons for Quashing: 1. Jurisdictional Issue: The Central Government's Drugs Inspector lacked constitutional authority to prosecute Chapter IV (manufacture/sale) offences—this power exclusively belongs to State Government inspectors under Articles 73, 162 of the Constitution and the Act's structure. 2. Vicarious Liability Defect: The complaint failed to specify how partners (petitioners 2-5) were "in charge of and responsible" for day-to-day business operations; merely naming partners without concrete allegations violates Supreme Court precedent requiring specific averments for vicarious liability. 3. Procedural Violation: Drug sample testing exceeded the mandatory 60-day deadline under Rule 45 (drawn 04.06.2019, reported 11.11.2019), depriving accused of the right to challenge the analyst's report before expiry. The Court found continuation would constitute abuse of process, as the prosecution case was bound to fail on multiple grounds. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 23-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep SharmaView PDF

  4. 17-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep SharmaView PDF

  5. 09-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep SharmaView PDF

  6. 24-Mar-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep SharmaView PDF

  7. 03-Mar-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep SharmaView PDF

  8. 03-Mar-2026

    Admission After Notice

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh

  9. 09-Dec-2025

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender SinghView PDF

  10. 09-Dec-2025

    Admission After Notice

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh

  11. 18-Nov-2025

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender SinghView PDF

  12. 23-Sep-2025

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender SinghView PDF

  13. 23-Sep-2025

    Admission After Notice

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh

  14. 09-Sep-2025

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender SinghView PDF

  15. 09-Sep-2025

    Admission After Notice

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh

  16. 19-Aug-2025

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender SinghView PDF

  17. 19-Aug-2025

    Admission After Notice

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh

  18. 24-Jul-2025

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender SinghView PDF

  19. 24-Jul-2025

    Admission After Notice

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh

  20. 19-Jun-2025

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender SinghView PDF

  21. 19-Jun-2025

    Admission After Notice

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh

  22. 03-Jun-2025

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender SinghView PDF

  23. 03-Jun-2025

    Admission After Notice

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh

  24. 21-May-2025

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender SinghView PDF

  25. 21-May-2025

    Admission After Notice

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh

  26. 12-Mar-2025

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender SinghView PDF

  27. 03-Jan-2025

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander NegiView PDF

  28. 03-Jan-2025

    Admission After Notice

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi

  29. 18-Nov-2024

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh KainthlaView PDF

  30. 28-Oct-2024

    Additional Registrar(j)View PDF

  31. 14-Oct-2024

    Additional Registrar(j)View PDF

  32. 17-Sep-2024

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep SharmaView PDF

  33. 31-May-2024

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander NegiView PDF

  34. 03-May-2024

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander NegiView PDF

  35. 27-Mar-2024

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander NegiView PDF

  36. 06-Dec-2023

    Admission After Notice

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kainthla

  37. 22-Nov-2023

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh KainthlaView PDF

  38. 13-Sep-2023

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil KukrejaView PDF

  39. 13-Sep-2023

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  40. 21-Aug-2023

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRMMO/930/2023

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: M/S SALUS PHARMACEUTICALS AND OTHERS v. UNION OF INDIA (CRMMO 930/2023) Court Decision (07.05.2026): The Himachal Pradesh High Court quashed the criminal complaint and cognizance order against the petitioners (pharmaceutical company and its partners) under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. Key Reasons for Quashing: 1. Jurisdictional Issue: The Central Government's Drugs Inspector lacked constitutional authority to prosecute Chapter IV (manufacture/sale) offences—this power exclusively belongs to State Government inspectors under Articles 73, 162 of the Constitution and the Act's structure. 2. Vicarious Liability Defect: The complaint failed to specify how partners (petitioners 2-5) were "in charge of and responsible" for day-to-day business operations; merely naming partners without concrete allegations violates Supreme Court precedent requiring specific averments for vicarious liability. 3. Procedural Violation: Drug sample testing exceeded the mandatory 60-day deadline under Rule 45 (drawn 04.06.2019, reported 11.11.2019), depriving accused of the right to challenge the analyst's report before expiry. The Court found continuation would constitute abuse of process, as the prosecution case was bound to fail on multiple grounds. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case