Uttarakhand High Court quashes summons to Patanjali, Baba Ramdev in complaint over misleading ads

The Uttarakhand High Court has quashed a summons issued by a trial court to Patanjali Ayurved, Divya Pharmacy and their owners, Baba Ramdev and Balkrishna, in a complaint accusing them of publishing misleading advertisements to promote various products, including Coronil [Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. & Others versus State of Uttarakhand]..In a June 3 ruling, Justice Vivek Bharti Sharma observed that no expert report had been filed with the complaint to show that the advertisements were false or misleading. “Merely writing letter to the petitioner firm that the advertisement should be removed without stating specifically that the claim made in the advertisements were false, does not give reasons to prosecute the petitioner firm, that too, when there is no report of experts about the falsity or of its being misleading,” the Court said..The Court also said there should have been a specific allegation that a false claim about a drug was made to invoke the offences under the Drugs and Magical Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954.“As there is no allegation that how the advertisement was false and misleading so as to constitute the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 & 7 of '1954 Act' then there was no occasion for the trial court to take the cognizance and summon the petitioners to face trial,” it added..Notably, the High Court also opined that the State's reference to the Supreme Court's observation that Ramdev and Balkrishna had committed contempt of court by publishing the misleading advertisements, was misplaced."With utmost reverence to the observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the submission of learned Deputy Advocate General for the State is misplaced. This Court has to see whether the impugned order of cognizance and summoning passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar on the Complaint Case filed by the State is lawful, correct, proper and legal or suffers from any illegality. This petition has to be decided at the anvil of this test only. Inviting the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while deciding this petition under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., shall be extraneous," the High Court said..The State government had last year filed a complaint case against Patanjali, Divya Pharmacy, Ramdev and Balkrishna, accusing them of committing 20 offences between 2022 and 2024. The Chief Judicial Magistrate at Haridwar took cognizance of the alleged offences on April 16, 2024, and issued summons to the accused. The trial court order was then challenged before the High Court. In response, the State counsel conceded that the complaint nowhere stated that Patanjali's promotional videos or the advertisements were false in respect of the efficacy of its medicines. It was also conceded that the complaint did not show how the advertisements of the drugs were misleading. .Justice Sharma found that there was not even a single observation to show application of judicial mind by the trial court while taking cognizance and summoning the accused. “This cognizance order merely says that on the basis of the complaint and available evidences, the cognizance under Section 190(1)(a) of Cr.P.C. is taken. However, this cognizance order does not specify that what were the evidences available to the trial court to take the cognizance in the impugned order,” the Court said.The Court added that the trial court could not have taken cognizance of the offences as the period of limitation had already expired. “As per the complaint case filed in court, most of the offences were allegedly committed by the petitioners prior to 15.04.2023; that means more than one year before the date when cognizance was taken. Therefore, no cognizance of these offences could have been taken by the trial court in the light of Section 468 of Cr.P.C.. But the trial court has taken the cognizance for all the offences including the offence cognizance of which could not be taken because of limitation, by a composite order. Therefore, the impugned order of cognizance dated 16.04.2024 is bad in law and cannot be sustained.”.It also found that there was no Section 65B certificate under the Indian Evidence Act in the list of documents to prove the authenticity of the digital evidence cited against the accused. Further, the Court said the 20 offences alleged to have been committed by the accused were distinctive and not connected to form the same transaction.“Therefore, in the considered view of this Court, the composite order of taking cognizance and summoning for more than three offences spread over the period of more than two years is not permissible under the law. Hence, this composite order of taking cognizance dated 16.04.2024 is unsustainable and liable to be set aside on this count also,” the Court ruled.Consequently, the Court quashed the cognizance and summoning order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar..Advocate Piyush Garg represented the petitioners (Patanjali Ayurved and its promoters). Deputy Advocate General Deepak Bisht represented the State..[Read Judgment]