Uttaranchal High Court: In an application under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’), filed by Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. (‘Patanjali’) against criminal proceedings under Sections 3, 4 and 7 of the Drugs and Magical Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954 (‘1954 Act’) and the summoning order therein vis-a-vis matter of misleading advertisements, a Single Judge Bench of Vivek Bharti Sharma, J., observing that there were no specific allegations to show that the advertisements were misleading and non-application of judicial mind in taking cognizance of the criminal case, quashed the criminal proceedings and set aside the summoning order.
Background: Allegations of misleading advertisements by Patanjali
In 2022 Ayush Mantralaya, Bharat Sarkar, sent letters to the State Government stating that medicines Madhugrit, Madhunashini, Divya Lipidom Tablet, Divya Livogrit Tablet, Divya Livamrit Advance Tablet, Divya Madhunashini Vati, Divya Madhugrit Tablet, Mukta Vati Extra Power, Swasari Gold and Patanjali Drishti Eye Drop were being promoted by misleading advertisements and Patanjali was directed to remove the misleading advertisements. Thereafter in 2024, Patanjali advertised other medicines on their X (formerly Twitter) account which claimed to cure cancer, obesity, and other diseases.
Subsequently, the State of Uttarakhand filed the Complaint Case seeking to to summon, try and punish Patanjali Ayurved for offences punishable under Sections 3 & 4 of 1954 Act read with Rule 6 thereof. Thereafter, cognizance was taken by the Trial Court on 16-04-2024.
Patanjali had filed the instant application under against the complaint case and summoning order therein.
Court’s Analysis
The Court began by perusing Sections 3, 4, and 7 of the 1954 Act. The Court noted that in Humdard Dawakhana v. Union of India, 1959 SCC OnLine SC 38 the Supreme Court had held the words “or any other disease, disorder or condition which may be specified in Rules made under this Act” in Section 3(d) of the 1954 Act to be ultra vires. Hence, the Court noted that there should be specific allegations that the alleged misleading advertisement suggested for “diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment or prevention” of any disease, disorder or condition as specified in Schedule of the 1954 Act. 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.
The Court further observed that there was no occasion for the Trial Court to take cognizance and summon Patanjali to face trial as there was no allegation or expert report that showed how the advertisement was false and misleading to constitute the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 & 7 of the 1954 Act.
The Court, relying on Supreme Court’s judgment in Sunil Bharti Mittal vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2015) 4 SCC 609, noted that “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”.
The Court referred to the principle of vicarious liability of directors of the Corporate Body as laid down by the Supreme Court in Sunil Bharti (Supra). The Supreme Court in the above case citing Aneeta Hada v. Godfather Travels & Tours (p) Ltd., (2012) 5 SCC 661, had held that the principle of “alter ego” should be applied in the single direction i.e., “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”. There must be a specific act attributed to the Director or any other person in control of the management to make him liable for the acts committed by or on behalf of the company.
The Court noted that the Trial Court had not applied its judicial mind on the afore-stated aspects and straightaway fixed the appearance date without reason.
The Court, while analysing the impugned order stating that the complaint case had been filed by a ‘Senior Food Security Officer’ of which there is no mention in the 1954 Act, took note of the ‘casual manner’ in which the Trial Court has passed the impugned order.
The Court noted that Section 7 of the 1954 Act sets penalties for contraventions, including those under Sections 3 and 4, with a maximum of six months imprisonment for a first conviction and one year for subsequent ones. However, Section 468 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) imposes a one-year limitation period for taking cognizance of offences punishable by imprisonment up to one year. Most alleged offences occurred before 15-04-2023 more than a year before cognizance was taken. Therefore, the Court held that the impugned order of cognizance dated 16-04-2024 was bad in law and unsustainable.
The Court further held that the alleged offences were of the same kind but were distinct in nature and were not connected to each other to form the same transaction and hence the composite order of taking cognizance and summoning for more than three offences spread over more than two years was not permissible as per Section 219 (1) of the CrPC.
The Court referred to State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, (1992) SCC (Cri) 426, wherein the Supreme Court had laid down circumstances in which a court could exercise its power to prevent the abuse of process of the court. The Supreme Court had held that where allegations prima facie does not make out a case against the accused, then a person should not be dragged in criminal trial just because a complaint filed against him.
The Court said that every Indian citizen has a fundamental right to carry any occupation, trade, or business, and to promote it through lawful means. If the State restricts this right and penalizes its violation, it must provide admissible evidence and grounds for such reasonable restrictions. There was no evidence or even an allegation that the claim was false or misleading, nor the manner of its alleged misleading nature was described.
Therefore, the Court with the aforesaid reasons, set aside the criminal proceedings, and the summoning order passed by the Trial Court.
[Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. v. State of Uttarakhand, Criminal Misc Application No. 118 of 2025, decided on 03-06-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the petitioner: Piyush Garg, Advocate
For the respondent: Deepak Bisht, Deputy Advocate General
