Safiya Malik

The High Court of Uttarakhand Single Bench of Justice Vivek Bharti Sharma held that the order taking cognizance and summoning the petitioners in a criminal case under the Drugs and Magical Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954 was unsustainable in law. The Court quashed the summoning order dated 16.04.2024 and all related proceedings in Criminal Complaint Case No. 3892 of 2024. The Court found that the trial court's order lacked judicial application of mind and failed to meet statutory requirements under the Act and Code of Criminal Procedure.

The State filed a criminal complaint seeking to prosecute the petitioners under Sections 3, 4, and 7 of the Drugs and Magical Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954. The complaint alleged that certain Ayurvedic medicines manufactured by the petitioner firm were promoted through misleading advertisements. These included Madhugrit, Madhunashini, Lipidom Tablet, Livogrit Tablet, Livamrit Advance Tablet, Mukta Vati Extra Power, Swasari Gold, Drishti Eye Drop, BPgrit Tablet, Cysto Grid Tablet, and Medohar Vati.

Also Read: Supreme Court Restores FIR Over Alleged Gold Loan Fraud | Says Patna HC Erred In Treating Complaint As Malicious Without Trial Evidence

The complaint was based on a series of letters received from the Ayush Ministry of the Government of India beginning in February 2022, stating the allegedly misleading promotional claims. The petitioners had responded by stating the withdrawal of the advertisements and reliance on a Bombay High Court judgment which stayed Rule 170 of the 1954 Act. Despite repeated notices, further advertisements were posted, prompting the State to file the present complaint.

The petitioners moved the High Court seeking quashing of the proceedings on multiple grounds, including bar of limitation, improper complainant authority, absence of required statutory procedure for seizure, and lack of foundational allegations in the complaint.

The petitioners also argued that the impugned summoning order was passed without examining any evidence or providing reasons, and that it was issued merely based on a complaint filed by an unauthorized officer. They contended that the ingredients necessary to attract offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the 1954 Act were absent from the complaint, particularly the lack of any specific false claim or misleading impression being alleged.

It was also submitted that no Certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act had been filed to validate digital materials like video advertisements. Furthermore, the petitioners raised a challenge based on Section 219(1) CrPC, arguing that the cognizance of over twenty unrelated incidents over more than two years violated the procedural limit on joinder of charges.

The State's counsel conceded that the impugned order wrongly referred to the complainant as a Senior Food Security Officer and acknowledged that the complaint failed to specify how the advertisements were false or misleading.

The Court recorded, "there is no allegation in Complaint Case, that what was false and misleading in the alleged advertisement or promotional videos." It further stated, "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'."

Referring to the requirement of judicial satisfaction, the Court noted, *"the trial court even did not state its satisfaction, that the allegation if proved would constitute an offence."

It was also recorded, *"The trial court 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 reason."

On the procedural lapse, the Court quoted the Supreme Court's dictum: "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."

Regarding limitation, the Court stated, "Therefore, no cognizance of these offences could have been taken by the trial court in the light of Section 468 of Cr.P.C.." It noted the offences dated back to early 2022, while cognizance was taken in April 2024.

It further held, *"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."

The High Court directed that the impugned cognizance and summoning order dated 16.04.2024 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar, in Criminal Complaint Case No. 3892 of 2024, be set aside. It held that the complaint, even taken at face value, failed to disclose any offence under Sections 3, 4, and 7 of the 1954 Act due to absence of essential factual allegations.

Also Read: Parole Period Must Be Subtracted Only From Total Sentence | Actual Sentence Means Real Time Spent Behind Bars : Punjab And Haryana High Court

The Court concluded that the proceedings against the petitioners lacked statutory foundation and were initiated in contravention of legal procedure, particularly regarding cognizance within the limitation period, competent authority to file the complaint, and absence of judicial satisfaction in the trial court’s order.

Accordingly, all proceedings emanating from the summoning order were quashed. The criminal misc. application under Section 528 of the BNSS was disposed of.

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioners: Mr. Piyush Garg, learned counsel  

For the Respondents: Mr. Deepak Bisht, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State

Case Title: M/s Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. & Others v. State of Uttarakhand

Neutral Citation: 2025:UHC:4704

Case Number: Criminal Misc Application No. 118 of 2025

Bench: Justice Vivek Bharti Sharma

[Read/Download order]