Delhi High Court Quashes Criminal Case Against Gautam Gambhir for COVID-19 Drug Distribution

File photo

New Delhi:

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 medicines during the pandemic.

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna delivered the order, stating, "criminal complaint quashed".

The high court issued this ruling on a petition challenging the summons issued by a trial court against Gambhir, his wife, mother and the foundation, seeking dismissal of the criminal complaint.

The Delhi government's Drug Control Department had filed a complaint against Gambhir, who was then the 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 license while Section 27(b)(ii) makes sale and distribution without valid license punishable with imprisonment for a term not less than three years but which may extend to five years along with a 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 regarding the petition filed by the Gautam Gambhir Foundation, Gambhir and his family members.

They had challenged both the criminal complaint and the summoning order issued by the trial court in the case.

On April 9, the high court vacated the stay on the trial court proceedings, prompting Gambhir to file a fresh application requesting reconsideration of the order.

The Drug Control Department counsel opposed the plea, arguing that it was not maintainable as Gambhir had directly approached the high court instead of first filing with the revisional court of sessions.

The prosecution's counsel stated that the petitioners had admittedly distributed the drugs without a valid license, and their only defense was that they had not sold the medications.