LawforAll

▼
Showing posts with label 1985. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1985. Show all posts
Sunday, November 19, 2017

Sections 20 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, hereafter referred to as the “Act”).= there was no evidence worth the name either to identify the appellant Khekh Ram to be the driver of the offending vehicle who fled on seeing the police patrol party or that either or both the accused persons were in conscious possession of the contraband claim to be seized therefrom. - suspicion, howsoever grave cannot take the place of proof and the prosecution case to succeed has to be in the category of "must be" and not "may be" a distance to be covered by way of clear, cogent and unimpeachable evidence to rule out any possibility of wrongful conviction of the accused and resultant miscarriage of justice- The High Court in the attendant facts and circumstances, in our determination, erred in upturning the findings recorded by the Trial Court. The impugned judgment and order is thus set aside and the acquittal of the appellant is restored. This Court shares the concern expressed by the Trial Court on the shoddy investigation conducted in the case, having regard in particular to the seriousness of the offence involved and reiterate the direction issued by it to the Superintendent of Police, Kullu to enquire into the matter to ascertain the reason for the omission/lapses in the investigation, identify the person(s) responsible therefor and the action taken in connection therewith so as to ensure against repetition of such shortcomings in future. The Superintendent of Police, Kullu would complete the inquiry and submit a report to this Court within a period of three months herefrom.

›
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1110 OF 2016 KHEKH RAM …APPELLANT VERSUS STAT...
Thursday, August 15, 2013

The Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CETA’) under Chapter 30 of the Schedule (2) deals with pharmaceutical products for the purposes of tariff. At the relevant time, if a product is held to be medicament, then, the rate of duty was 15% and, if not, 70%. Heading 30.03 deals with the medicaments including veterinary medicaments. - ‘Care or cure’, is the clue for the resolution of the lis arising in these cases. If the product by name ‘Moisturex’ is held to be a medicament for cure, the decision goes in favour of the assessee and if the product is held to be one for care of the skin, the decision benefits the Central Excise. The Tribunal has held in favour of the assessee and, thus, the Central Excise is in appeals.= In the case of ‘Moisturex’, there is no dispute that the said cream is prescribed by the dermatologist for treating the dry skin conditions and that the same is also available in chemist or pharmaceutical shops in the market. The cream is not primarily intended for protection of skin. The ingredients in the cream, the pharmaceutical substances do show that it is used for prophylactic and therapeutic purposes. The Central Excise Tariff Act has unambiguously clarified as to what is a medicament for curing an ailment relating to skin. Heading 33.04 dealing with beauty or make-up preparations and preparations for the care of the skin has specifically excluded medicaments. There is also an indication under the same entry that medicinal preparations used to treat certain complaints are to be provided under the Heading 30.03 (medicaments) or 30.04 (products containing pharmaceutical substances used for medical, surgical, dental or veterinary purpose). 21. Tribunals, the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal,West Zonal Bench at Mumbai in the first case and Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench at Mumbai in the other, having regard to the pharmaceutical constituents present in the cream ‘Moisturex’ and its use for the cure of certain skin diseases, have rightly held that the same is a medicament liable to be classified under the Heading 30.03 (medicament). Thus, there is no merit in these appeals. They are accordingly dismissed. No costs.

›
                     published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=40649    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA                      ...