Gautam Gambhir accused of illegally stocking and distributing COVID-19 drugs during the pandemic
Delhi government’s drug control department had filed complaint against Gambhir, his foundation, wife, mother
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna pronounces Delhi HC order, saying, “criminal complaint quashed”
The Delhi High Court on Friday quashed a criminal case against Indian cricket team head coach Gautam Gambhir, his foundation and others for allegedly illegally stocking and distributing COVID-19 drugs during the pandemic.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna pronounced the order, saying, “criminal complaint quashed”.
The high court passed the order on a plea challenging the summons issued by a trial court against Gambhir, his wife, mother and the foundation and seeking quashing of the criminal complaint.
The Delhi government’s Drug Control Department had filed a complaint against Gambhir, then MP from east Delhi, his foundation, its CEO Aprajita Singh, his mother and wife, Seema Gambhir and Natasha Gambhir, respectively -- both trustees in the foundation -- under Section 18(c) read with Section 27(b)(ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.
Section 18(c) prohibits manufacture, sale and distribution of drugs without a licence whereas Section 27(b)(ii) makes sale, distribution without valid licence punishable with imprisonment for a term, not be less than three years but which may extend to five years and with fine.
On September 20, 2021, the high court had stayed the trial court proceedings in the case and sought response from the Delhi drug control authority on the petition filed by the Gautam Gambhir Foundation, Gambhir and his family members.
They challenged the criminal complaint and the summoning order passed by the trial court in the case.
On April 9, the high court vacated the stay on the trial court proceedings and Gambhir filed a fresh application seeking recall of the order.
The Drug Control Department counsel opposed the plea, saying the plea was not maintainable as Gambhir had directly moved the high court instead of first moving the revisional court of sessions.
The prosecution's counsel said the petitioners had admittedly distributed the drugs without a valid licence and their only defence was not having sold it.
