https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77964 A dealer may be prosecuted for alleged contravention of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 even if the manufacturer is not impleaded as an accused. The Act does not bar prosecution of a dealer on that ground, and the limited statutory defence available to a non-manufacturer depends on proof of lawful acquisition, lack of knowledge despite reasonable diligence, and proper storage without alteration. That defence is a matter for trial after evidence, not for quashing proceedings at the threshold. Accordingly, criminal proceedings should proceed to trial. en-us Mon, 02 Sep 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 23 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77964 A dealer may be prosecuted for alleged contravention of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 even if the manufacturer is not impleaded as an accused. The Act does not bar prosecution of a dealer on that ground, and the limited statutory defence available to a non-manufacturer depends on proof of lawful acquisition, lack of knowledge despite reasonable diligence, and proper storage without alteration. That defence is a matter for trial after evidence, not for quashing proceedings at the threshold. Accordingly, criminal proceedings should proceed to trial. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 02 Sep 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77964