The Delhi Drugs Control Department on Friday opposed Indian cricket team head coach and former BJP MP Gautam Gambhir’s plea before the Delhi High Court seeking quashing of a case over alleged unauthorised stocking and distribution of the Covid-19 drug Fabiflu during the pandemic’s second wave, asserting that a trial was “imperative to determine the veracity of the allegations.”
A bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna reserved its verdict on Gambhir’s petition, which also challenges the summons issued by the trial court. The department’s counsel argued that the plea was not maintainable, contending that Gambhir should have approached the sessions court instead of directly moving the high court.
“They are challenging the summoning order, it’s a revisable one, they must have approached the sessions court. Trial has to take place, to determine the veracity of the allegations,” the department’s lawyer submitted.
The case stems from a July 2021 complaint filed by the department against Gambhir, his wife Natasha, mother Seema, the Gautam Gambhir Foundation, and its CEO Aprajita Singh under Section 18(c) read with Section 27(b)(ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The complaint followed a Delhi High Court order directing inquiries into individuals and organisations allegedly stocking and distributing medicines in violation of the Act.
Section 18(c) prohibits the manufacture, sale, or distribution of drugs without a licence, while Section 27(b)(ii) prescribes a jail term of three to five years and a fine for such violations.
On July 26 this year, the trial court had summoned Gambhir in connection with the case.
In his petition, Gambhir maintained that the medicines were distributed free of cost to people in need and not sold for profit, and that his family members were unnecessarily implicated. He had earlier secured a stay on trial court proceedings in September 2021, which was vacated in April this year.
Earlier this week, the high court refused to recall its April 9 order vacating the stay and cautioned Gambhir against “name-dropping” during the proceedings.
The court has now reserved its decision on whether to quash the proceedings or allow the trial to continue.
