HC Quashes Uttarakhand Govt’s Complaint Against Patanjali Ayurved
The Uttarakhand High Court quashed a criminal case against Patanjali Ayurved Ltd and its founders, Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna, over alleged publication of misleading medical advertisements.
The complaint was filed in 2024 by the Uttarakhand Senior Food Security Officer for offences punishable under Sections 3, 4 & 7 of the Drugs and Magical Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954. The complaint referred to letters received from the Ayush Ministry in 2022, which stated that the medicines Madhugrit, Madhunashini, Divya Lipidom Tablet, Divya Livogrit Tablet, Divya Livamrit Advance Tablet, Divya Madhunashini Vati, and Divya Madhugrit Tablet were promoted by misleading advertisements.
The High Court allowed the petition filed by Patanjali Ayurved, Ramdev and Balkrishna under Section 582 of the BNSS to quash the summons issued to them by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar, on the complaint. The High Court observed that in the complaint, there was “no evidence of falsity of claim, no allegation of falsity of claim nor there is any description of manner how that is misleading.”
Justice Vivek Bharti Sharma observed in the order as follows :
“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.”
“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 trial court to take the cognizance and summon the petitioners to face trial,” the High Court said.
Significantly, the High Court said that the State cannot rely upon the Supreme Court’s observations in the contempt case against Patanjali and that the complaint has to be assessed solely on the basis of the allegations raised in it and the materials supporting it.
“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,” the High Court said.
The Court also noted that the complaint filed with respect to the incidents prior to 2023 was time-barred. The Court added that the summoning order was “devoid of application of judicial mind.”
“As per the complaint case filed in court, 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. 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.”
The composite order of taking cognizance dated 16.04.2024 for 20 offences was found to be irregular.
“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.”
Recently, the Kerala High Court stayed a case filed against Divya Pharmacy under the same Act after observing that the complaint prima facie seemed to be time-barred.
Appearances |
Mr. Piyush Garg, for the petitioners.
Mr. Deepak Bisht, Deputy Advocate General for the State.
Case : M/s Patanjali Ayurved Ltd v State of Uttarakhand
