[ad_1]
Uttarakhand High Court
3 June vs State Of Uttarakhand on 3 June, 2025
Author: Vivek Bharti Sharma
Bench: Vivek Bharti Sharma
2025:UHC:4704
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc Application No. 118 of 2025
03 June, 2025
M/s Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. & Others --Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand --Respondent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Piyush Garg, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Mr. Deepak Bisht, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.
This criminal misc. application is filed by the
petitioners/accused under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. for
setting-aside the summoning order dated 16.04.2024 and
to quash the proceedings in Criminal Case No.3892 of
2024 titled “State through Ayurvedic Yunani Adhikari vs.
Swami Ramdev”, pending before the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar against the petitioners for
the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 & 7 of the
Drugs and Magical Remedies (Objectionable
Advertisements) Act, 1954 (referred as ‘1954 Act,’
hereinafter) alongwith all the proceedings emanating
therefrom.
2. Admit the petition.
3. The brief facts of the case are that a Complaint
1
2025:UHC:4704
Case No.3892 of 2024 was filed by the State to summon,
try and punish the petitioners/accused for the offence
punishable under Sections 3 & 4 of 1954 Act read with
Rule 6 thereof (Annexure SA 1).
As per this complaint, a letter dated
11.02.2022 was received from Ayush Mantralaya, Bharat
Sarkar that the medicines Madhugrit and Madhunashini
manufactured by petitioner no.2 is promoted by alleged
misleading advertisements; that, similarly, letter dated
15.04.2022 of Ayush Mantralaya, Bharat Sarkar was also
received stating that the medicines Divya Lipidom Tablet,
Divya Livogrit Tablet and Divya Livamrit Advance Tablet,
Divya Madhunashini Vati and Divya Madhugrit Tablet
manufactured by the petitioner no.2/accused are being
promoted by alleged misleading advertisement; that, the
petitioners firm was directed to remove this alleged
misleading advertisement; that, vide letter dated
07.05.2022 the petitioner no.2 informed the State that, in
the light of the judgment of Bombay High Court dated
11.02.2019 in Writ Petition No. 289 of 2019, the action
cannot be taken against the petitioners/accused as rule
170 of the Act has been stayed and further informed that
the alleged advertisements have been withdrawn; that,
vide letter dated 27.05.2022, the petitioner no.2 firm was
directed to remove the alleged misleading advertisements
2
2025:UHC:4704
for medicines namely Madhunashini, Madhugrit, Mukta
Vati Extra Power and Swasari Gold manufactured by it;
that, vide letter dated 02.07.2022, the petitioner no.1 was
directed to remove the alleged misleading advertisements
for Patanjali Drishti Eye Drop manufactured by it; that,
thereafter, several other letters were sent to the petitioner
firm for removing the alleged misleading advertisements
for the above medicines manufactured by it; that, on
29.01.2024 Divya BPgrit Tablet was advertised from
Twitter account of Patanjali Ayurved @PypAyurved; that,
similarly, on 06.02.2024 Divya Cysto Grid tablet was
advertised from the same Twitter account to mislead that
it may cure cancer; that on 17.02.2024 Medohar Vati was
also advertised from the same Twitter handle to treat the
obesity and so on so forth; that, the petitioners/accused
gave an undertaking in the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Writ Petition No.645 of 2022 that there shall not be any
violation of any law(s) especially relating to advertising or
branding of products manufactured and marketed by it
and, further, that no casual statements claiming medicinal
efficacy or against any system of medicine will be released
to the media in any form.
Alongwith this complaint, the correspondence
done by the Ayush Mantralaya, Bharat Sarkar with the
State Government and by State with the petitioners were
3
2025:UHC:4704
also filed with some photocopies of alleged
advertisements with pen drive(s).
4. Heard.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners/accused
would submit that in the Complaint Case No. 3892 of
2024, the cognizance was taken by the impugned order
on 16.04.2024 after the period of limitation for taking
cognizance since, as per the complaint the offence was
committed prior to 11.02.2022.
He would further submit that as per Section
7(a) of 1954 Act, the first offence was punishable with
imprisonment of six months and for one year, in case of
repeated offence; that, as per Section 468(2)(b) of Cr.P.C.,
the cognizance of the offence punishable with
imprisonment of one year, can be taken only within a
period of one year, therefore, the impugned order is bad
in the eyes of law, unsustainable and is liable to be
quashed.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners/accused
would further submit that as per Section 8 of 1954 Act,
only authorized person could enter and seize the
objectionable material constituting the offence and as per
sub-section 3 of Section 8 of 1954 Act, objectionable
material, if seized, constituting the offence had to be
4
2025:UHC:4704
placed before the Magistrate, however, no entry or seizure
was ever made by any authorized person as per the
scheme of “1954 Act”, consequently, nothing was placed
before the Magistrate, hence, straightaway no complaint
case could have been filed.
He would further submit that the impugned
cognizance order is non-speaking as no reason is
assigned by the trial court that what were the evidence of
commission of alleged offence by petitioner and how
petitioner nos. 3 & 4 are liable to be prosecuted for these
offences on which the cognizance is taken; that, the
cognizance order merely says that the complaint is filed
by the Senior Food Security Inspector under Sections
3, 4 & 7 of “1954 Act” and no evidence under Section 200
of Cr.P.C. is needed, hence, the accused be summoned to
face the trial; that, the use of words “Senior Food
Security Officer” in the cognizance order reveals total
non-application of mind as no complaint case for any
alleged offence punishable under “1954 Act” could have
been filed by Senior Food Security Officer.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners/accused
would further submit that as per Section 9 of “1954 Act”
any Director or functionary of the Company can be
prosecuted only if he was responsible for the acts and
5
2025:UHC:4704
affairs of the Company which led to the commission ofoffence, however, such allegation is neither made in the
complaint nor the impugned cognizance order says that
the petitioner nos. 3 & 4 were responsible for the affairs
of the Company that led to the commission of alleged
offence.
He would rely upon a judgment of Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of ‘Sunil Bharti Mittal vs.
Central Bureau of Investigation‘, (2015) 4 SCC 609,
whereby the Hon’ble Supreme Court has said that the
trial court has to observe in the order by which the
cognizance is taken that Director or functionary of the
Company was responsible for the affairs of the Company
and its working that led to the commission of the offence.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners/accused
would further submit that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
its order dated 26.03.2025 in the case of ‘Indian
Medical Association & Anr. Vs. Union of India &
Others‘ in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 645 of 2022 has
observed that as soon as complaints are received through
Grievance Redressal Mechanism or otherwise, the same
shall immediately be forwarded to concerned Officers
authorized under Section 8(1) of “1954 Act” to take action
under the said provision; that, if such authorized officer
6
2025:UHC:4704
finds that there is contravention of provisions of “1954
Act”, he shall, apart from taking action under Section 8
of “1954 Act”, forthwith set criminal law in motion by
lodging the complaint with jurisdictional police station so
that an F.I.R. can be registered and criminal law is set in
motion; that, therefore, in view of above observations
of the Apex Court, only the F.I.R. could have been
lodged for any offence under “1954 Act” as there is
no provision in “1954 Act” for any officer or
functionary of the State to file the complaint case
under “1954 Act”.
9. The learned counsel for the
petitioners/accused would further submit that Ministry
of Ayush had constituted Technical Review Committee
(I.T.R.C.) for Covid-19 on 28.10.2020 for patents of
Ayurvedic medicines and in Lok Sabha, Minster of Ayush
had stated on 10.02.2023 that Committee has
recommended CORONIL Tablet for prevention of Covid-
19; that, therefore, there was neither false claim nor
misleading assertion by petitioner firm.
10. Per contra, learned State counsel would
submit that this complaint case was filed prior to the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court ‘Indian Medical
Association‘ (supra), however, he would fairly concede
7
2025:UHC:4704
that in the impugned order, the summoning was done on
the report of the Senior Food Security Officer, however,
that may be a typographical mistake.
11. Learned State counsel would submit that the
petitioner nos. 3 & 4 are the owners of petitioner firm
nos. 1 & 2; that, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its order
dated 19.03.2024 in Writ Petition No. 645 of 2022 has
observed that the petitioner nos. 3 & 4 have committed
the contempt of court for giving the advertisements and
statements after having given undertaking and the
Hon’ble Supreme Court gave various warnings to the
petitioners.
He would further submit that misleading
promotional videos were uploaded on the Twitter handle
@PypAyurved on 15.03.2024, 29.03.2024, 17.02.2024
also and so on so forth. However, when the attention of
the learned Deputy Advocate General for the State was
drawn to the complaint (Annexure SA 1) then he fairly
conceded that it is nowhere stated in the complaint that
the alleged promotional videos or the advertisements
were false in respect of the efficacy of those medicines.
He further conceded that it has not been
alleged in the complaint that how the alleged
advertisements or the drugs allegedly manufactured by
8
2025:UHC:4704
the petitioners were misleading and it is also not alleged
in complaint case that the advertisements or promotional
videos of the drugs were for what disease, disorder or
condition specified in the Schedule of the “1954 Act”.
It would be opportune and pertinent for
judicious examination of matter in issue to reproduce
Sections 3, 4 & 7 of “1954 Act”. It reads as under:-
“3. Prohibition of advertisement of certain drugs for treatment of
certain diseases and disorders.–Subject to the provisions of this Act,
no person shall take any part in the publication of any advertisement
referring to any drug in terms which suggest or are calculated to
lead to the use of that drug for–
(a) the procurement of miscarriage in women or prevention of
conception in women; or
(b) the maintenance or improvement of the capacity of human
beings for sexual pleasure; or
(c) the correction of menstrual disorder in women; or
(d) the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment or prevention of
any disease, disorder or condition specified in the Schedule, or
any other disease, disorder or condition (by whatsoever name
called) which may be specified in the rules made under this Act:
Provided that no such rule shall be made except–
(i) in respect of any disease, disorder or condition which
requires timely treatment in consultation with a
registered medical practitioner or for which there are
normally no accepted remedies; and
(ii) after consultation with the Drugs Technical Advisory
Board constituted under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act,
1940 (23 of 1940), and if the Central Government
considers necessary, with such other persons having
special knowledge or practical experience in respect of
Ayurvedic or Unani systems of medicines as that
Government deems fit.
9
2025:UHC:4704
4. Prohibition of misleading advertisements relating to drugs.–
Subject to the provisions of this Act, no person shall take any part in
the publication of any advertisement relating to a drug if the
advertisement contains any matters which–
(a) directly or indirectly gives a false impression regarding the
true character of the drug; or
(b) makes a false claim for the drug; or
(c) is otherwise false or misleading in any material particular.”
And Section 7 reads as under:-.
“7. Penalty.–Whoever contravenes any of the provisions of this Act
or the rules made thereunder shall, on conviction, be punishable–
(a) in the case of the first conviction, with imprisonment which
may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both;
(b) in the case of a subsequent conviction, with imprisonment
which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.”
It is pertinent to note that five judge Bench of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgment ‘Humdard
Dawakhana (Wakf), Lal Kuan, Delhi and Another vs.
Union of India and Others‘, AIR 1960 SC 554 has held
that the words in Section 3(d) of the “1954 Act” “or any
other disease, disorder or condition which may be
specified in Rules made under this Act” are
ultravires.
12. Hence, in order to bring home the offence
against any person as per Sections 3 & 4 of the “1954
Act”, it is imperative to allege in specific words that how
the punitive offence is made out against the accused
10
2025:UHC:4704
persons. That is to say, there should be specific
allegation that for diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment
or prevention of what disease, disorder or condition as
specified in Schedule to “1954 Act”, the alleged
advertisement was suggested. There should be specific
allegation that what false impression about the true
character of the drug or false claim about drug was made
or what misleading or falsity was there in the alleged
advertisement. In absence of such specific allegation in
the Complaint Case or F.I.R., the prosecution shall be a
futile exercise. It is important to observe that with the
Complaint Case no report of any expert in the field, is
filed to say that the advertisement was false or
misleading.
It would not be out of place to observe that any
telecasting promotional videos or publishing the
advertisements for any product, may that be the drug,
would, otherwise, not have been an offence in absence of
Sections 3, 4 & 7 of “1954 Act”. Therefore, it was
necessary for the complainant/State to make all
allegations constituting the offence punishable under
Sections 3, 4 & 7 of “1954 Act”. As there is no allegation
that how the advertisement was false and misleading so
as to constitute the offence punishable under Sections 3,
4 & 7 of “1954 Act” then there was no occasion for the
11
2025:UHC:4704
trial court to take the cognizance and summon the
petitioners to face trial.
13. It would not be out of place to note that in the
impugned order dated 16.04.2024, there is not even a
single observation which may reflect the application of
judicial mind by the trial court while taking the
cognizance and summoning the accused persons.
The order of cognizance reads as under:-
^^fnukad 16-04-2024
vkt ;g ifjokn ifjoknh ftyk vk;qosZfnd ,oa ;wukuh
vf/kdkjh@vkS”kf/k fujh{kd vk;qosZn] gfj}kj }kjk bZ&QkbZfyax djrs gq,
HkkSfrd :i ls U;k;ky; ds le{k vfHk;qDrx.k Lokeh jkenso f’k”; Lokeh
‘kadj nso] vkpk;Z ckyd`”.k f’k”; Lokeh ‘kadj nso] eSllZ fnO; QkesZlh ,oa
eSllZ iratfy vk;qosZn fyfeVsM] ds fo:) vUrxZr /kkjk&3] 4 ,oa /kkjk 7
MªXl eSftd jsesMht ¼vkWCtsD’kuscy ,MojVkbtesUV½ ,DV] 1954] ds rgr
izLrqr djrs gq, dFku fd;k x;k fd ifjoknh yksd lsod gS ,oa yksd
lsod dh gSfl;r ls mlds }kjk ifjoknh lafLFkr fd;k x;k gS ,oa ifjokn
i= ,oa miyC/k lk{;ksa ds vk/kkj ij vfHk;qDr ds fo:) mijksDr /kkjkvksa
ds rgr laKku ysdj vfHk;qDr dks U;k;ky; ryc djus dh izkFkZuk dh
x;hA
ifjoknh dks lquk rFkk ifjokni= o ifjokni= ds lkFk izLrqr
vfHk;kstu izi=ksa dk ifj’khyu fd;kA
/kkjk 190¼1½¼,½ n.M izfØ;k lafgrk ds vUrxZr vijk/k dk izlaKku
fy;k tkrk gSA ifjokn ds :i esa lh0vkbZ0,l0 rFkk lEcfU/kr iaftdk esa
ntZ fd;k tk;sA ifjokn ntZ gksus ds mijkar e/;kUrj ckn /kkjk 200
n0iz0la0 ds c;ku gsrq i=koyh izLrqr dh tk;sA¼jkgqy dqekj JhokLro½
eq[; U;kf;d eftLVªsV] gfj}kj**(Emphasis supplied)
12
2025:UHC:4704
This cognizance order merely says that on thebasis of the complaint and available evidences, the
cognizance under Section 190(1)(a) of Cr.P.C. is taken.
However, this cognizance order does not specify that
what were the evidences available to the trial court to
take the cognizance in the impugned order.
14. Similarly, the summoning order passed on the
same day is also devoid of application of judicial mind. It
reads as under:-
^^iwoksZDr lanfHkZr izko/kku ds vuqlkj ifjoknh ofj”B [kk| lqj{kk vf/kdkjh
yksd lsod gS ds }kjk fyf[kr ifjokn izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA bl dkj.k /kkjk
200 n0iz0la0 ds rgr c;ku ls mUeqfDr nh tkrh gSA ifjoknh ds fo}ku
vf/koDrk@vfHk;kstu vf/kdkjh ds }kjk ;g rdZ izLrqr fd;k x;k gS fd
ifjokn i= ds lkFk nLrkosth lk{; izLrqr fd;k x;k gS] ftuds vk/kkj ij
/kkjk 3] 4 ,oa /kkjk 7 MªXl eSftd jsesMht ¼vkWCtsD’kuscy ,MojVkbtesUV½
,DV] 1954 ds rgr] /kkjk 200 n0iz0la0 ifjoknh ds nLrkosth lk{; ds
izdk’k esa vfHk;qDr ds fo:) i;kZIr dk;Zokgh dk vk/kkj gS rFkk /kkjk 3] 4
,oa /kkjk 7 MªXl eSftd jsesMht ¼vkWCtsD’kuscy ,MojVkbtesUV½ ,DV] 1954
esa [email protected] gsrq ryc gksA i=koyh okLrs gkftjh eqfYte fnukad 10-05-
2024 dks is’k gksA vkns’k NJDG iksVZy ij viyksM gksA**
The summoning order merely says that the
prosecution officer argued that on the basis of the
documentary evidence filed alongwith the complaint
there is enough ground to proceed against the
petitioners/accused for the offence under Sections 3, 4 &
7 of 1954 Act, therefore, the accused persons should be
summoned for the trial. After stating the argument of
13
2025:UHC:4704
the prosecution, the trial court did not advert to the
evidence, if any, filed with the complaint case. The
trial court even did not state its satisfaction, that the
allegation if proved would constitute an offence. The
trial court even did not observe if there was any
allegation in the Complaint Case that the petitioner
nos. 3 & 4 played any role in commission of offence
alleged. Instead, the trial court without any
application of mind and without explicitly
summoning the petitioners, straightaway fixed the
matter for presence of the accused persons on
10.05.2024.
It is important proposition of law that sine-qua-
non for taking cognizance of offence is application of
judicial mind by Magistrate. Magistrate has to form an
opinion that, on the basis of the evidence placed in
charge-sheet or complaint, commission of any offence is
made out. A person ought not to be dragged into court
merely because a complaint has been filed. There is no
allegation in Complaint Case, that what was false and
misleading in the alleged advertisement or promotional
videos. The absence of allegation of falsity and the
absence of the averment of the manner having tendency
to mislead, does not make out any offence punishable
under Section 7 of “1954 Act”.
14
2025:UHC:4704
It is important to observe that the annexure
SA-3 to supplementary affidavit says that the medicine
CORONIL was even recommended by I.T.R.C. of
Government of India and that was admitted by the
Minster of Ayush in Lok Sabha on 10.02.2023. This fact
has not been contested by learned State counsel.
15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgment
‘Sunil Bharti Mittal vs. Central Bureau of
Investigation‘, (2015) 4 SCC 609 in para no. 44 has laid
down the principle of vicarious liability of Directors,
Managers etc. of the Corporate body. It reads as under:-
“44. When the company is the offender, vicarious
liability of the Directors cannot be imputed
automatically, in the absence of any statutory provision
to this effect. One such example is Section 141 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. In Aneeta Hada”, the
Court noted that if a group of persons that guide the
business of the company have the criminal intent, that
would be imputed to the body corporate and it is in this
backdrop, Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act
has to be understood. Such a position is, therefore,
because of statutory intendment making it a deeming
fiction. Here also, the principle of “alter ego”, was
applied only in one direction, namely, where a
group of persons that guide the business had
criminal intent, that is to be imputed to the body
corporate and not the vice versa. Otherwise, there
15
2025:UHC:4704
has to be a specific act attributed to the Directoror any other person allegedly in control and
management of the company, to the effect that
such a person was responsible for the acts
committed by or on behalf of the company.”
In para no. 48 of this judgment, the Hon’ble
Apex Court has discussed the judicial act of taking
cognizance by the court. It reads as under:-
“48. Sine-qua-non for taking cognizance of the offence
is the application of mind by the Magistrate and his
satisfaction that the allegations, if proved, would
constitute an offence. It is, therefore, imperative that on
a complaint or on a police report, the Magistrate is
bound to consider the question as to whether the same
discloses commission of an offence and is required to
form such an opinion in this respect. When he does so
and decides to issue process, he shall be said to have
taken cognizance. At the stage of taking cognizance, the
only consideration before the court remains to consider
judiciously whether the material on which the
prosecution proposes to prosecute the accused brings
out a prima facie case or not.”
The perusal of the impugned order shows that
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has not applied his
mind on these aspects. Rather, after noting the
submission of the prosecution, straightaway fixed the
case for appearance of petitioners without giving any
16
2025:UHC:4704
reason. Such an order of taking cognizance and
summoning cannot be sustained.
16. It is also most important to note that in this
impugned order, the trial court has observed that the
complainant was Senior Food Security Officer,
whereas the complaint could not have been filed by
the Senior Food Security Officer. It again shows the
casual manner in which the impugned order was
passed by the trial court.
17. It would be pertinent to revisit Section 7 of
1954 Act, which says that the contravention of any
provision of the Act (including Sections 3 & 4 of 1954 Act)
shall be punishable on first conviction which may extend
to six months, or with fine or with both and for
subsequent conviction, with imprisonment which may
extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.
Section 468 of Cr.P.C. stipulates that the
period of limitation to take cognizance of an offence shall
be one year if the offence is punishable with
imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year.
As per the complaint case filed in court, the
most of the offences were allegedly committed by the
petitioners prior to 15.04.2023 that means more than
one year before the date when cognizance was taken.
17
2025:UHC:4704
Therefore, no cognizance of these offences could have
been taken by the trial court in the light of Section 468 of
Cr.P.C.. But the trial court has taken the cognizance for
all the offences including the offence cognizance of which
could not be taken because of limitation, by a composite
order. Therefore, the impugned order of cognizance dated
16.04.2024 is bad in law and cannot be sustained.
18. Perusal of the list of witnesses also shows that
there is no digital evidence to be proved as per law
because in the list of documents there is no mention of
the Certificate as issued under Section 65B of the Indian
Evidence Act.
19. It is also important to note that Section 219(1)
of Criminal Procedure Code says that when a person
When a person is accused of more offences than one of the
same kind committed within the space of twelve months
from the first to the last of such offences, whether in
respect of the same person or not, he may be charged
with, and tried at one trial for, any number of them not
exceeding three.
Perusal of the Complaint Case (Annexure SA 1)
shows that the first alleged offence was committed on or
before 11.02.2022. Similarly, last alleged offence was
committed in April 2024. Further, perusal of the
18
2025:UHC:4704
Complaint Case shows that approximately 20 alleged
offences, as stated in the Complaint Case (Annexure SA 1)
and paragraph no.37 of the counter affidavit, were
committed by the petitioners.
It is pertinent to note that though these alleged
offences may be of same kind but are distinctive and not
connected to each other so as to form the same
transaction, therefore, in the considered view of this
Court, the composite order of taking cognizance and
summoning for more than three offences spread over the
period of more than two years is not permissible under
the law. Hence, this composite order of taking cognizance
dated 16.04.2024 is unsustainable and liable to be set-
aside on this count also.
20. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgment
‘State of Haryana & Others vs. Bajan Lal And
Others‘, (1992) SCC (Cri) 426 has laid down the
proposition of law thereby illustrating the circumstances
in which the court can exercise its power to prevent the
abuse of process of the court. Therefore, where the
allegations made in the first information report or the
complaint, even if they are taken at their face and accepted in
their entirety do not make out a case against the accused,
then a person should not be dragged in criminal trial merely
for the reason that a complaint has been filed. In present
19
2025:UHC:4704
case, as observed above, there is no allegation in the
Complaint Case filed in the court of Magistrate that how and
what was false in the alleged advertisement. Rather, there is
no allegation or averment at all that the alleged
advertisements were false. Though, it is alleged
advertisements were misleading but there is no description of
the incidents or manner how the advertisements were
misleading. Merely writing letter to the petitioner firm that the
advertisement should be removed without stating specifically
that the claim made in the advertisements were false, does
not give reasons to prosecute the petitioner firm, that too,
when there is no report of experts about the falsity or of its
being misleading.
It is inalienable fundamental right of every Indian
citizen to carry on any occupation, trade or business under
Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India subject to reasonable
restrictions imposed under the law. The fundamental right to
carry on any trade or business is with right to promote his
business or product by lawful means. If State imposes any
restriction on this right and violation thereof punitive offence
then onus and burden is on the State to give grounds by way
of admissible evidence. But in the present Complaint Case,
there is no evidence of falsity of claim, no allegation of falsity
of claim nor there is any description of manner how that is
misleading.
21. Learned Deputy Advocate General for the State
20
2025:UHC:4704
would further submit that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
its order dated 19.03.2024 passed in Writ Petition No.645
of 2022 observed that the petitioner nos. 3 & 4 have
committed the contempt of court by giving the misleading
advertisements and statements notwithstanding the
undertaking given by them, therefore, the petitioners are
liable to be prosecuted for the offences punishable under
Sections 3 & 4 read with Section 7 of “1954 Act”. But in
view of this Court, with utmost reverence to the
observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the submission of
learned Deputy Advocate General for the State is
misplaced. This Court has to see whether the impugned
order of cognizance and summoning passed by the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar on the
Complaint Case filed by the State is lawful, correct,
proper and legal or suffers from any illegality. This
petition has to be decided at the anvil of this test only.
Inviting the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court,
while deciding this petition under Section 528 of
B.N.S.S., shall be extraneous.
22. In view of the foregoing reasons, the impugned
cognizance and summoning order dated 16.04.2024
passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Haridwar in Criminal Complaint Case No.3892 of 2024
against the petitioners for the offence punishable under
21
2025:UHC:4704
Sections 3, 4 & 7 of “1954 Act” is hereby set-aside.
23. The present C-528 petition stands disposed of
accordingly.
(Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.)
03.06.2025
Akash
22
[ad_2]
Source link