Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the presence of dextrose in the product satisfied the conditions of the exemption notification by being a pharmaceutical necessity that was therapeutically inert and did not interfere with the therapeutic or prophylactic activity of the scheduled ingredient.
Analysis: The exemption depended on strict compliance with the notification. Where a medicine contains an ingredient not specified in the schedule, the ingredient must be shown to be a pharmaceutical necessity and must also be therapeutically inert without interfering with the therapeutic or prophylactic activity of the scheduled ingredient. The record did not contain material evidence establishing that the dextrose in the product satisfied these conditions. The appellate authority had not addressed the controlling Supreme Court decision and had not examined the basic evidence or chemical report to determine whether the statutory conditions for exemption were met.
Conclusion: The conditions for exemption were not proved, so the respondent was not entitled to the benefit of the notification.
Ratio Decidendi: Exemption under a conditional drug notification is unavailable unless the non-scheduled ingredient is affirmatively shown to be a pharmaceutical necessity and therapeutically inert without interfering with the activity of the scheduled ingredient.