The Kerala High Court on Thursday stayed the criminal proceedings initiated against Patanjali Ayurved's promoters, Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna, in a prohibited advertisement case..Single-judge Justice VG Arun stayed the proceedings pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court II in Palakkad.The stay was granted for three months..The prosecution against Patanjali and its promoters were instituted based on a complaint filed by the Palakkad Drug Inspector alleging that they carried an advertisement that was published in Mathrubhumi newspaper on September 30, 2023 for a product by the name 'Mukta Vati Vati Extra Power'.The complaint alleged that the same fell within the definition of 'prohibited advertisement' as per the provisions of the Drugs and Magical Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954.It was further alleged that the advertisement was published with an intention to induce patients to purchase the drugs, which will result in self-medication and uses of the drug without the direction of the medical practitioner, which may lead to undesirable and irreparable effect on the health of persons.Subsequently, an inspection was conducted in the premises of Patanjali and the drug was found stocked in the premises for sales. As per the complaint, it was a drug as defined under Section 2(b) of the Act and that the label of the product contained “Indications- Useful in Blood Pressure (Cardiac Disorder)", which is alleged to be an advertisement within the meaning of Section 2(a) of the Act.Patanjail, Ramdev and Balkrishna then approached the High Court with the present plea to quash the proceedings.One of their argument was based on the violation of limitation period. According to the plea, the advertisement was dated September 30, 2023. Section 468 of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) prescribes that for offences involving punishment of up to six months imprisonment, the deadline for filing complaint is one year.However, in this case, the Magistrate took cognizance only on October 28, 2024 beyond the prescribed deadline.Further, as per their plea, the advertisement was not in violation of Section 3(d) because the preamble of the Act say that the Act is intended to prevent magic remedies. "The word magic remedy is defined as drug having miraculous powers. The object of section 3(d) to suggest/calculate to lead the use of the drug such a magical remedy is not advertised. The advertisement itself carries a statement that, the medicine can be so used only after the prescription by a registered medical practitioner, which means that the advertisement itself does not lead to the use of the drug straight away. So, the offence under the section 3(d) is not made out," the plea claimed.Moreover, according to Patanjali, the first proviso to section 223 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) provides that no cognizance of an offence shall be taken by the Magistrate without giving the accused an opportunity of being heard. Such opportunity is mandatory and admittedly, no such opportunity was granted to Ramdev and Balkrishna, it was contended..Senior Advocate Ajith Kumar appeared for Patanjali, Ramdev and Balkrishna assisted by advocates Cyriac Tom, Shiv Shankar and Ananthu Bahuleyan from Quint Law Partners along with advocates Yagyawalkya Singh from D&Y Law Chambers and advocate Sanjay Singh..[Read Order]
