The Uttarakhand High Court has set aside a trial court's summons issued to Patanjali Ayurved, Divya Pharmacy, and their promoters Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna in a case alleging the dissemination of misleading advertisements for products including ‘Coronil’
In a ruling dated June 3, Justice Vivek Bharti Sharma observed that the complaint filed by the State was not supported by an expert report to establish that the advertisements were false or misleading.
The Court held that a mere letter asking for withdrawal of the advertisement, without asserting its falsity or misleading nature, did not justify prosecution under the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954.
“There is no allegation specifying how the advertisements were false or misleading to attract offences under Sections 3, 4 & 7 of the 1954 Act,” the Court noted. “The trial court had no occasion to take cognizance or summon the petitioners without such specific allegations.”
The State had relied on the Supreme Court’s observation in a contempt case against Ramdev and Balkrishna to support its complaint. However, the High Court clarified that those remarks could not form the basis for evaluating the legality of the Chief Judicial Magistrate’s order.
“This petition must be tested on the legality of the impugned cognizance order under Section 528 of the BNSS. Reliance on Supreme Court observations in contempt proceedings is extraneous in this context,” the Court said.
The complaint, filed in 2023, alleged that Patanjali and its promoters committed 20 offences between 2022 and 2024. The CJM, Haridwar, took cognizance on April 16, 2024, and issued summons. However, the State counsel admitted that the complaint did not demonstrate how the advertisements were false or misleading.
Justice Sharma further pointed out that the trial court's order lacked judicial reasoning and failed to mention any evidentiary basis for taking cognizance.
“The order merely records that cognizance is being taken under Section 190(1)(a) CrPC without identifying which evidence supported this decision.”
Additionally, the High Court ruled that the trial court’s cognizance was barred by limitation, as most of the alleged offences occurred more than a year before April 16, 2024.
The Court also found procedural lapses, including the absence of a Section 65B certificate to validate digital evidence and improperly clubbed offences that were not part of the same transaction.
“Taking cognizance for more than three distinct offences spread over a two-year period through a composite order is impermissible in law,” the Court held.
As a result, the High Court quashed the CJM Haridwar’s order of cognizance and summoning dated April 16, 2024.
Advocate Piyush Garg appeared for the petitioners, while Deputy Advocate General Deepak Bisht represented the State.