0

Criminal Proceedings against the Special Armed Forces (SAF) Officers is an Abuse of Process of Law – Supreme Court

Case Title – Murari Lal Chhari & Ors vs Munishwar Singh Tomar & Anr.     

Case No. – Criminal Appeal No(s).1076 OF 2024

Decided On – March 04, 2024

Quoram – Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

The issue in this case involved a boundary dispute between the SAF (Special Armed Force) and the first respondent relating to the land bearing Survey Nos.1822 and 1823 having an area of 2 bighas and 1 biswa in Gwalior city.

Facts of the case

The first respondent filed a civil suit before the trial for the declaration of his title as Bhumiswami and a permanent injunction. After, subsequent dismissal of the suits by trial and appellant court, the High court interfered on the second appeal and passed a decree of declaration and permanent injunction.

The first appellant, the Commandant of the 14th Battalion of SAF at Gwalior violated this decree of the High Court by trespassing upon the suit property. Hence, in 2016, the first respondent filed a Contempt Petition against the first appellant. During the pendency of the Contempt Petition, the respondent filed a complaint against the appellants under Section 200 of CrPC alleging the commission of offences under Sections 323, 294, 427, 341, 447, 506B read with Section 34 and Section 107, 141 of IPC.

The allegation in the complaint was that though the first respondent was declared as the owner of the suit property by the High Court and though the demarcation of the suit property was carried out after notice to the SAF, the first appellant conspired with the other officers to illegally capture the suit property.

The respondent also alleged that that the accused officers broke the fencing and when he objected, they verbally abused him and he was pushed several time and even gave a death threat.

The matter was filed before the Magistrate. The Magistrate passed an order directing the cognizance to be taken under Sections 294,323, 427, 447, and 506­ of IPC. Subsequently, this order was challenged before the High Court. However, the High court dismissed the petition.

Legal Provisions

Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Prosecution of Judges and Public Servants.

Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Evidence of witness on oath

Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Postponement of issue of process

Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Dismissal of Complaint

Section 34 of IPC – Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention

Sections 107 of IPC – Abetment of a thing

Section 141 of IPC – Unlawful Assembly

Section 294 of IPC – Obscene acts or words in public

Sections 323 of IPC – punishment for voluntarily causing hurt

Section 341 of IPC – Punishment for wrongful restraint

Section 427 of IPC – Mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees

Section 447 of IPC – Punishment for Criminal Trespass

Section 506B of IPC – Punishment for Criminal Intimidation

Submissions on behalf of the accused appellants

The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that even assuming arguendo that the allegations are true, the acts attributed to the appellants were done by them in the performance of their statutory duties as the officers of SAF and stated that the Magistrate has completely failed to address this aspect in its order.

Submissions on behalf of the respondents

The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that the Magistrate has passed the order with due application of mind and thorough perusal of the witnesses. Hence, contended that there was no merit in challenging the same. Further, he submitted that committing acts of trespass cannot be a part of   the   appellants’ official   duty and hence must be de-bared from protection under the Section 197 of CrPC. The counsel thus submits that a full-fledged trial is necessary in order to convict the accused for the said offences.

Courts Observation and Analysis

In substance, the cause of action for filing the Contempt Petition and the alleged cause of action for filing the complaint was substantially the same. The fact that the Contempt Petition was filed has not even been disclosed in the statement of the first petitioner recorded in the complaint. The first respondent did not challenge the dismissal of the Contempt Petition.

The Court further pointed out another factual error in the proceedings. The first respondent, during the examination of the matter has not given even the date on which alleged acts of encroachment and administering threats were made at the instance of the appellants. Further, the two witnesses appeared also failed furnish the approximate dates   of   the   alleged incidents

Judgement

The Court held that prosecution of the complaint was itself   an   abuse of the process   of   law and hence the the impugned order of the High Court and the learned Magistrate taking cognizance of the matter are quashed. Therefore, the complaints filed by the first respondent stands dismissed.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed by – Keerthi K

Click here to view the Judgement

0

The Accused cannot be held guilty under the NDPS Act if the evidence collected by the Police Officers is full of contradictions: Supreme Court

Case Title – Mohammed Khalid and Another vs The State of Telangana

Case No. – Criminal Appeal No(s). 1610 of 2023 with Criminal Appeal no(s). 1611 of 2023

Decided On – March 01, 2024

Quoram – Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta

The issue in this case was regarding the conviction of appellants under Section 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and sentencing each of them to a rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years with a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-

In the case of Mohammed Khalid and Another vs The State of Telangana, the appellants challenged the decision of The High Court of Telangana on various grounds. They further, contested that the Learned Trial court had committed an error in wrongly prosecuting them under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

Facts of the Case

The Inspector of Police, Mr. M. Srinivasa Rao upon receiving intercepted the vehicle and found A1 (Mohd. Ishaq Ansari) and A-2 (S.A. Shafiullah) in the vehicle. The inspectors are alleged to have seized three bundles of ganja weighing around 80 kgs in the vehicle. Further, three samples weighing about 50 grams were drawn from each bundle of contraband and remaining muddamal ganja was seized. Notably, one part of this sample was handed over to A-1 and A-2. Based on these proceedings, a complaint came to be lodged and a Criminal case was registered and investigation on the same was commenced.

Out of the three samples that were collected, one part of sample was forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratory to determine the type of narcotic substance. The reports from FSL confirmed that the collected sample was of ‘Ganja’ as defined under Section 2(b) of the NDPS Act.

The Investigating Officer, upon the interrogation of A1 and A2, apprehended the accused A-3 (Mohd. Khalid) and A-4 (Md. Afsar). Subsequently, a charge-sheet was filed against the four accused in the trial Court.

The trial Court upon examination of witness and documents on record proceeded to convict and sentence the accused under Section 8 read with Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act

Being aggrieved by their conviction, the accused preferred an appeal before the High Court of Telangana. The HC upheld the judgment of trial court and rejected their appeal. The A-1 (Mohd. Ishaq Ansari) expired during the pendency of appeal before the High Court and hence the charges against him were abated.

The other three accused challenged this decision of High Court. The A-3 and A-4 have preferred Criminal Appeal No. 1610 of 2023 and A-2 has preferred Criminal appeal No. 1611 of 2023 before the Supreme Court.

Legal provisions

Section 2(b) of the NDPS Act – Defines ‘Cannabis Ganja’

Section 8(c) of NDPS Act – Prohibition of certain operations

Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of NDPS Act –  Person found in possession of cannabis in a commercial quantity

Section 43 of the NDPS Act – Power of seizure and arrest in public place

Section 49 of the NDPS Act – Power to stop and search conveyance

Section 52A of the NDPS Act – Disposal of seized narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.

Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Power to examine the accused

Section 374(2) CrPC, 1973 – Appeal from convictions.

Section 25 of the Evidence Act – Confession to police officer not to be proved. 

Submissions on behalf of the accused appellants

Learned counsel representing A-2(S.A. Shafiullah) submitted that the two independent panch witnesses i.e. Shareef Shah and Mithun Jana who were associated in the recovery proceedings, were not examined in the evidence. The Seizure Officer made no effort to segregate the chillies from the alleged contraband and contended that the recovered contraband ganja did not fall within the category of commercial quantity.

The facts reveal that the Seizure Officer who collected a total of three samples, handed over one part of the sample to the accused. But, three distinct sample packages were found at the FSL for testing. The counsel hence raised doubt regarding the sanctity of the samples collected by the Seizure Officer.

The Counsel also highlighted the loopholes in the investigation and unveiled the misappropriation of evidence by the Police Inspectors in the course of trial.

The Learned counsel representing A-3 (Mohd Khalid) and A-4 (Md. Afsar) urged that these accused were not found present at the spot at the time of seizure. They were arrested merely on the basis of the confessional statements of A-1 and A-2. Thus, he submitted that their conviction is illegal and unsustainable on the face of the record.

Submissions on behalf of State

The Learned counsel representing the State opposed the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the appellants. He urged that two Courts, i.e., the trial Court as well as the High Court were right in convicting the appellants. He thus implored the Court to dismiss the appeals.

Courts Observation and Analysis

The court considering the submissions advanced and analyzing the evidence on record made the following observations. The court pointed out that the contraband recovered from three bags collected as evidence contained the ganja as well as green chillies. Thus, the court concluded that there is no certainty in adducing that the recovered ganja weighed 80 kgs in actuality.

The bench observed that the two independent panch witnesses, were not examined in evidence and also no explanation was given by the prosecution for the same. The prosecution failed to satisfy the court regarding the safe custody of the sample packets from the time of the seizure till the same reached the FSL.

The court also pointed out that the very possibility of three samples being sent to FSL is negated by the fact that the Seizure Officer handed over one of the three collected samples to the accused. This discrepancy completely shatters the prosecution case. The court further noted that the mandate under Section 52A of the NDPS Act was not satisfied.

The court with regard to the case against the accused A-3 and A-4 observed that the entire case of prosecution against them was merely based on the interrogation notes of A-1 and A-2, which is hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act.

Judgement

The Court opined that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charges against the accused. The evidence of the police witnesses was full of contradictions and unconvincing. The conviction of the accused appellants as recorded by the trial Court and affirmed by the High Court is illegal on the face of record and suffers from highest degree of perversity. Therefore, the court acquitted the appellants of all the charges.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed by – Keerthi K

Click here to view the Judgement

0

Legal representatives of the deceased developer are not liable to discharge the deceased’s obligations which were primarily based on his skills and expertise – Supreme Court

Case Title – Vinayak Purshottam Dube (deceased) vs Jayashree Padamkar Bhat & Others

Case No. – Civil Appeal Nos.7768-7769 of 2023

Decided On – March 01, 2024

Quoram – Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

The issue involved in this case was regarding the extent of liability of legal heirs in fulfilling obligations of the deceased developer, a sole proprietor under a development agreement.

In the case of Vinayak Purshottam Dube (deceased) vs Jayashree Padamkar Bhat & Others the appeals have been filed by the legal representatives of the opposite party-sole proprietor against the common final judgment passed by the NCDRC.

Facts of the Case

In this case, the appellants were the legal heirs of the original opposite party in the consumer complaint before the District Forum and the respondents were the complainants. The complainants, Jayashree Padmakar and others, owners of property had entered into a Development Agreement with the opposite party and according to the agreement, the complainants were entitled to receive eight residential flats and Rs.6,50,000/- as consideration.

The opposite party failed to fulfill the payment obligations and hence, the complainants alleged breaches of the agreement. Despite notices issued by the complainants, the opposite party denied the allegations and refused to take actions in that regard.

They filed a complaint before the District Consumer Forum. The District Forum considering the Development Agreement between the parties, it held that the opposite party was to be liable to pay an amount of Rs. 1,65,000/- and 1,85,000/- along with interest rate of 18% and an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- at the time of conveyance. Being aggrieved by its order; both parties approached the State Commission.

The State Commission partly modified the order by setting aside the directions to pay Rs. 1.85 lakhs and Rs. 1.65 lakhs as the said claims were held to be time-barred but upheld the direction to pay Rs. 1.5 lakhs. The State Commission also placed reliance on some other clauses of the Development Agreement and directed the opposite party to fulfil their obligations.

Then, a revision petition was filed before the NCDRC (National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission). During the pendency of the petition before the NCDRC, the original opposite party – Vinayak Purushottam Dube died and his legal representatives i.e., his wife and two sons were brought on record, who are the appellants before this Court. The NCDRC disagreed with the finding and conclusion of the State Commission with respect to the time-barred transaction. Hence, it upheld the directions of District Forum ordering for the payments of Rs. 1.85 lakhs and Rs. 1.65 lakhs along with interest. The NCDRC also upheld the directions given by the State Commission with respect to fulfillment of their obligations.

The NCDRC, on pursuance of the review petition upheld its earlier findings. Further, NCDRC refused to accept the contention of the appellants-opposite party and held that the death of a developer has no effect upon the obligations of the developer under the Development Agreement and the same have to be executed by the legal heirs of the developer.

Legal provisions

Section 37 of Indian Contract Act, 1872 – Obligation of parties to Contract

Section 40 of Indian Contract Act, 1872 – Person by whom promise is to be performed

Section 2(11) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Legal Representative

Section 50 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 The holder of the decree may apply to the Court to execute it against the legal representative of the deceased, if judgment-debtor dies before the enforcement of the decree.

Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 – Demands and rights of action of or against deceased survive to and against executor or administrator. Legal Maxim – “actio personalis moritur cum persona” – a personal right of action dies with the person.

Submissions on behalf of the Appellants

The learned counsel submits that it not poossible for the legal representatives (wife and sons) to follow the directions of the District Forum and State Commission as they were issued personally against the opposite party who is a deceased now.

He contended that the original opposite party had skills and expertise to comply with the said directions as a developer. But, on his demise, his legal representatives, namely, his widow and two sons cannot be compelled to carry out those directions as they neither possess the necessary skills nor expertise to execute the same. Hence, the counsel submits that the clauses in the Development agreement which placed rights and obligations on Vinayak cannot be enforced against his legal heirs in pursuance of his demise.

Submissions on behalf of the Complainants

The Learned Counsel submits that the Complainants will have no recourse if the said directions are not enforced by the opposite part. He contended that the NCDRC
was justified in directing the legal representatives of the deceased opposite party to take steps for also complying with those directions.

Issue – The Question before the Court was whether the legal representatives can be made liable to comply with those obligations under the Development Agreement on the demise of the original opposite party

Courts Observation and Analysis

The Supreme Court examined the nature of the obligations under the development agreement. It distinguished between proprietary rights (inheritable and having economic value) and personal rights (non-transferable and ending with the individual).

The Court referred to Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and Sections 37 and 40 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, highlighting that personal obligations dependent on an individual’s skills or competencies are not transferable to legal heirs.

Legal precedents, including Raghu Lakshminarayanan vs. Fine Tubes and Ajmera Housing Corporation vs. Amrit M. Patel, were cited to underline those obligations requiring personal performance by the deceased cannot be enforced against legal heirs.

The Court further said that where the decree or order is not against the estate of a deceased sole proprietor but based on the skills and expertise of the sole proprietor, the obligations which had to be performed by the sole proprietor would come to an end on his demise and the same cannot be imposed on his legal heirs or representatives.

Judgement

The Supreme Court ruled that while the legal heirs are responsible for monetary obligations from the deceased’s estate, they are not liable for personal obligations that were specific to the developer’s skills or expertise. Thus, the Court held that the legal representatives of the deceased developer are not liable to discharge the obligations which had to be discharged by the deceased opposite party in his personal capacity. Consequently, the Court set aside the NCDRC’s orders imposing personal obligations on the legal heirs but upheld the monetary liabilities to be settled from the estate.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed by – Keerthi K

Click here to view the Judgement

0

Supreme Court puts an advertisement ban on Patanjali stating the brand is deceiving masses.

ABSTRACT

This article talks about the recent supreme court ban on the advertisement published by Patanjali. The ban was due to the misleading nature of the advertisements contributing to the dissemination of false information in the healthcare industry. The healthcare industry is frequently prone to misleading advertisements by AYUSH companies making false claims to the public for profit. Several government enactments and regulatory bodies and their contributions to control false marketing have been listed. The article delves deeper into the legal technicalities involved, current legislation on the same and plausible solutions to combat the problem.

INTRODUCTION

What’s the news, why in news?

Patanjali is in the news again for all the bad reasons. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has banned misleading advertisements published by Patanjali. The face of this brand is the widely known yoga guru Baba Ramdev. On 23rd August, 2023 the Supreme Court while hearing a writ petition filed by the Indian Medical Association condemned the misleading advertisements published in the electronic media by Patanjali. Such ads released by the company aims at making false claims about ‘curing’ diseases like diabetes, asthma etc. The claims are referred to as ‘false’ since there is no scientific backing to substantiate the same. The Chief Justice stated that Baba Ramdev can rightfully promote his practices of yoga and brand, but it is unnecessary for him to criticise other systems and practices in medicine. On 21st November, 2023 the Supreme Court had again issued a severe warning to Patanjali for its unabating misleading advertisements. Justice Amanullah also mentioned that the court will go to the extent of charging a fine of Rs. 1 crore on every product that claims to treat and ‘cure’ diseases. The court also mentioned that it has no intention of sparking a debate as to which system of medicine is better allopathy or ayurveda. The aim is to prevent the spreading of misinformation. The counsel for the brand guaranteed the court that no such advertisements will be made in any way including making statements in the media. The petition also addresses Baba Ramdev’s allegations blaming allopathy behind deaths during COVID-19. The court had also directed the Centre to take strict actions against the conduct of such companies under the Drugs and Magic Remedies (objectionable advertisements) Act, 1954. In its hearing on 27th February, the Hon’ble Court criticised the Centre for not taking any action. The court criticised the laidback attitude of the government as the petition was filed in 2022, and it has been two years since then. The Centre contended that under the Drugs and Magic Remedies Act, 1954 it is the responsibility of the state governments to ensure implementation but the court justly said that it is the duty of the centre to inform the state governments about the same and sought action. The IMA also informed the bench that Patanjali even after assuring the court to cease from producing misleading advertisement in its previous hearing has continued to do the same. The brand disregarded the orders given by the court which led the court to ban the advertisements of products related to diseases under the Drugs and Magic Remedies Act, 1954.

What inferences can be drawn from this news?

Yoga, an ancient practice, has crossed the boundaries of our country due to its innumerable health benefits. Baba Ramdev, a yoga guru, rose to fame as a teacher and promoter of the age-old practice. His popularity led him to start Patanjali Ayurved in collaboration with Balkrishna. The masses of the country have immense trust in Baba Ramdev and the products of his brand. Patanjali products like toothpaste, oils are widely used by the public. In light of these facts, when such a brand spreads misinformation, it influences the public at large. Making false claims of curing dangerous diseases can lead to severe consequences. It is important for people having serious health problems to consult professional doctors. The court proceedings are the testament of the negligent behaviour of the government and the concerned authorities in taking strict actions against such advertisements. The government continues to play the blame game instead of rising to action.

LEGAL FRAMEWORK IN PLACE

Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954[1]

This act aims to manage and regulate the promotion and advertisement of drugs in the context of claiming that such drugs have magical healing properties. Section 2©[2] of the act defines magic remedy which entails advertisement of drugs claimed to ‘cure’, mitigate, prevent or treat any kind of disease mentioned in schedule 1 of such act. Section 4 of the act clearly prohibits advertisements that aim to deceive the public and trick them into voluntary medication. Any violation of the provisions of this act shall amount to criminal offence and shall attract penalty amounting to imprisonment up to one year. The act aims to prevent self-medication by people as well as regulate the advertisement industry in this regard so as to prevent them from influencing the masses.

The constitutionality of this act was challenged in the case of Hamdard Dawakhana v. Union of India[3] on the grounds that it is violative of Article 19(1)(f) & (g)[4]. The court held that it is true that advertisement is a part of the freedom of speech, but the true essence and purpose of advertisement is to promote goods and services. And when this is done, it comes under the purview of trade and commerce since it is no longer the expression of ideas.

 The Drugs and Magic Remedies Objectionable Advertisement Rules, 1955

Rule 3 authorises the concerned persons to launch an investigation on advertisements that prima facie promotes drugs on false pretences. It also empowers the concerned authorities to cease the manufacturing and production of the same.

The Cable Television Network Act[5] and The Cable Television Network Rules[6]

The aforementioned act and rules have established a code for the publication of advertisements which is to be followed by all the concerned persons. Any violation will amount to imprisonment for a year or imposition of fine of Rs. 2000 or both as the case may be. An amendment to the rules in 2006 provides that the advertisement should not violate the code of conduct set out by the Advertisement Standards Council of India.[7]

Consumer Protection Act, 2019

The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was repealed and replaced by this act to upkeep with latest technological developments. The primary objective of the act is to safeguard consumer interests from the harsh practices adopted by sellers and to establish relevant authorities for the settlement of consumer disputes.

Advertisement defined in section 2(1)[8] of the act includes publishing in electronic media.

Section 9[9] of the act states the rights of the consumers which includes the right to be protected against the marketing of goods, products or services which are hazardous to life and property; the right to be informed about the quality, quantity, potency, purity, standard and price of goods, products or services, as the case may be, so as to protect the consumer against unfair trade practices and the right to consumer awareness.

Section 2(28) defines misleading information as an act of publicising and spreading false information and guarantee about the nature, substance, outcome etc of the product. It basically states all the ways in which sellers fool the consumers[10]. The consumer must also act in a reasonable manner.

Section 2(47)[11] of the act gives a comprehensive definition of unfair trade practices which includes advertisements made on any platform spreading misinformation about the product being sold by the company.

Section 10[12] of the act talks about the establishment of the Central Consumer Protection Authority. The act entails the strength, process of appointment, powers and procedures od the CCPA.

Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI)

ASCI is a not-for-profit self-regulatory body established for the regulation of advertisements under the companies act, 1956 to preserve consumer interests. It hasn’t been established under any legislation or government hence it does not constitute laws for the public or the related industries. People in the advertisement industry and the representative of aggrieved individuals formulate and abide by the principles formulated and laid down by the voluntary body. The principles of this body are Honesty, Decency, Non-harmfulness, and Fair play in a competition.

National Advertising Monitoring System (NAMS)

This regulatory body has been established by ASCI in 2012 in collaboration with TAMS Media to trace deceptive advertisements. They have been tasked to keep a track of newspapers as well TV channels in regional languages. It overlooks advertisements published in a plethora of sectors including banking, finance, health, medicine etc.

Uniform Code of Pharmaceuticals Marketing Practices (“UCPMP Code”)[13]

UCMP is another such regulatory body instituted under the Department of Pharmaceuticals in 2014 to restrict unethical and immoral practices used by companies. Any publicity of drug promotion must be approved by the respected authority and such information must be confirmed by the concerned bodies as well.

CRITICAL ANALYSIS

Advertisements are important in disseminating vital information to the public as they can help create awareness about a certain cause and help in the disclosure of such information in a quick span of time. In current times, companies misuse advertisements to get consumers to purchase their products. They make extravagant claims to sell their products for profit maximisation. They have frayed from the object of social responsibility to just tricking people. Such a spread of misinformation, especially in the medical industry, can prove to be fatal. The claims made by Patanjali to cure diseases such as diabetes that require special attention and care by medical professionals are not only misleading but outrageous. There is no scientific backing to this claim made by the brand.

Big companies by means of visual aid persuade the consumers further escalating the problem of misinformation. The target audience of these companies are easily susceptible to the methods used by them and are blindsided. Celebrities are made the ambassadors of such brands to reach a wide variety of audiences. Multiple channels of communication such as newspaper, internet are utilised to target different age groups. Even though the consumer protection act promises to protect the customers from evil practices adopted by the companies, hardly any action has been taken against such conduct. Misleading advertisements violate a plethora of consumer rights that have been guaranteed under the Consumer Protection Act. It violates the right of the consumers to information. Consumers have the right to know about every detail of the product being used by them including the side effects. It violates the consumer’s right to safety from the utilisation of products. Companies claiming instant lightening of the skin, rapid weight loss etc can cause long lasting problems to the health of the consumer. Another instance in which the brand Patanjali promoted products on its website aimed at improving the sexual performance of men and women. Such advertisements are strictly prohibited under the drugs and magic remedies act. In the case of K.C. Abraham v. The State of Kerala Peethaambaran Kunnathoor, Chennai[14] the court held that the promotion of the ayurvedic drug ‘Musli Power Xtra’ is in violation of section 7 of the drugs and remedies act. The efficiency of the product was questioned, and the company had to pay a penalty of Rs. 50,000.

The government has turned a blind eye to the manipulative tactics. Ultimately, it is the consumers who become the victim of such scams. Disregard to allopathy by AYUSH companies is a crisis that needs urgent attention of the authorities. According to WHO, spreading fake information is the major cause of hesitancy in taking vaccines and medicines provided by the government. Due to the overload in misleading advertisements people have formed a lot of misconceptions about the healthcare industry. It has become difficult for the government to convince people to take government-provided medicines. As it is said, ayurveda is the science of life. It is a way of living rather than a science that seeks to cure ailments. Certain diseases that have high risk require immediate attention and relief. That’s when allopathy tides in. Making bold statements like allopathy is the reason behind COVID-19 undermines people’s trust in medical science especially in tough times makes people lose hope in the system of medicine. The DMRA Amendment Bill dated 3rd February, 2020 has sought to increase the penalty, addition of more diseases and establishing an Ayurvedic, Siddha and Unani Drugs Advisory Board. All the current enactments only aim at curbing the advertisements rather than focusing on increasing consumer awareness.[15]

CONCLUSION

Given the widespread misuse of advertisement especially in the healthcare industry posing threats to the public at large, the government needs to come to the rescue of the citizens. Stringent actions need to be taken to set precedent for all such companies to cease from making false claims. Heavy penalties must be imposed on industries making extravagant claims. Policies need to be formulated and steps have to be undertaken to supervise advertisements by government authorities. There must be a government supervised and controlled platform accessible by the public wherein information regarding healthcare must be published to combat the problem of false claims made by big companies. Information must be provided in regional languages to ensure easy access and readability by all the sections of the society. Common health related myths must be busted in the same platform. Education also plays a vital role in this regard. Consumers must be made aware of prevalent health diseases and steps to be taken to prevent them. Healthline numbers must be provided in such a platform as well as location of nearby hospitals and the facilities provided therein. Online medical counselling as well as guidance must be provided by the government helping people in remote areas right from admission of the patient in the hospital to finances in case of medical emergencies. If the implementation is done diligently, then it will make a significant impact in the healthcare industry. The DMRA act is outdated calling for the need of new codified legislation.

REFERENCES

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8297168/

https://www.who.int/europe/news/item/01-09-2022-infodemics-and-misinformation-negatively-affect-people-s-health-behaviours–new-who-review-finds

https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/248322022133848538order21-nov-2023-506018.pdf

https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/baba-ramdev-should-not-abuse-medicine-systems-ayurveda-allopathy-supreme-court-ima-plea-207231

https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-patanjali-baba-ramdev-misleading-advertisements-indian-medical-association-242694

https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-issues-contempt-notice-to-patanjali-ayurved-its-md-for-misleading-ads-on-medicinal-cures-250636

https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/entire-country-taken-for-a-ride-you-shut-eyes-for-2-years-supreme-court-pulls-up-union-for-inaction-on-patanjali-ayurved-ads-250686

[1] Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954, No. 21, Acts of Parliament, 1973(India).

[2] Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, § 2(c), 1954, No. 21, Acts of Parliament, 1973(India).

[3] Hamdard Dawakhana v. Union of India, 1959 SCC Online SC 38

[4] Constitution of India, art. 19(1)(f) & Constitution of India, art. 19(1)(g)

[5] Cable Television Network Regulation Act, 1955

[6] Cable Television Network Rules, 1994, GSR 729(E)

[7] Misleading Drug Advertisements: Busting the Myth and Protecting Consumers, 1.4 JCLJ (2021) 592

[8] Consumer Protection Act, 2019, S. 2(1)

[9] Consumer Protection Act, 2019, S. 9

[10] Consumer Protection Act, 2019, s. 2(28)

[11] Consumer Protection Act, 2019, S. 2(47)

[12] Consumer Protection Act, 2019, S. 10

[13] Uniform Code of Pharmaceuticals Marketing Practices 2014

[14] KC Abraham v. State of Kerala Peethaambaran Kunnathoor, Chennai WP (C) No. 11410 of 2011

[15] Direct Marketing and Advertisement of Certain Medical Devices to Patients in India – A Dilemma, 6.1 RSRR (2020) 158

Article written by- Rashi Hora

0

RAPE OF A MINOR GIRL SENTENCED TO 20 YEARS IMPRISONMENT RATHER THAN NATURAL LIFE IMPRISONMENT: SUPREME COURT

The case Is FR.EDWIN PIGAREZ VERSUS STATE OF KERALA , JJ.Crl.Appeal Nos.1321 of 2016 and 160 of 2017.

The appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 160 of 2017 is the first accused and the appellant in Criminal appeal No.1321 of 2016 is the second accused on the files of Additional Sessions Court, Ernakulam. The first appellant was convicted under many offences which are punishable under many sections Section 375 (a) of IPC and Section 3 (a) , Section 3 (b)  under POCSO Act. And the second appellant convicted for the offence under section 212 of IPC.

The accused are brothers .First accused was a vicar in during that period. She used to attend morning prayer with her mother. After the prayer the victim goes missing .The first was accused was with the victim. So her mother questioned him  and went suspicious. Later on questioning she has revealed that she was sexually assaulted by the first accuse. After mother informed to authorities of the church and went to police station to file a case.

During  cross examination they if there was any consensual relationship between them or  the suggestion during this was first accused refused her love proposal. So the victim was giving false statement against him.

First accused was sentenced to undergo twenty  years imprisonment  and second accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment. The victim was went to medical examination before and after registration of the case. The relatives of the first accused met them to settle the case amicably and it is informed to them as it was not possible.

 Sushil Kumar v. Rakesh kumar, (2003) 8 SCC 673 and many more cases ,the apex court held that determination of date of birth of a person before a court of law, whether in a civil or criminal proceedings, would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case.

The birth Certificate was not challenged to accuse  the Victim is 21.09.2000 and that she was a child in terms of provisions contained in the POCSO Act during 2014 and 2015.  The sterling witnesses is the one that appears to be natural and consistent in the case.  In the medical examination she found evidence of sexual intercourse.

The second accused allegation was against him that he had harboured  the first accused from legal punishment. Special court found guilty that the second accused has done the offence under section 212 of IPC. There was no satisfactory evidence to prove that the victim was a child under POCSO Act during that period.

 In another case Jamali Singh v. State of Harayana, (2013) 7 SCC  263, it said that the age of the victim in this case will be given according to the provision contained in Section 94 of Juvenile Justice ( Careand Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

Police officer collected the birth certificate of the victim and produced same before the court .Rape is crime it effects upon women in the society. First accused for the offence of rape he was punished rigorous imprisonment for a period of 20 years instead of natural life remainder .

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgment Analysis Written by – K.Immey Grace

Click to view the judgement

1 16 17 18 19 20 23