Introduction:

In M/s Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. v. State of Uttarakhand, the Uttarakhand High Court—Justice Vivek Bharti Sharma presiding—dismissed a criminal complaint filed in 2024 by the Senior Food Security Officer, Haridwar, under Sections 3, 4, and 7 of the Drugs and Magical Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954. The complaint stemmed from Ayush Ministry correspondence issued in 2022, alleging that advertisements for products like Madhugrit, Madhunashini, Divya Livogrit, Divya Livamrit Advance, Divya Lipidom, and others were misleading. Patanjali Ayurved Ltd., along with its founders Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna, sought redress via Section 582 of the BNSS Code, challenging the summons issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar. The High Court, noting absence of any factual or expert support detailing how the ads were false or misleading, quashed the summons and criminal proceedings, finding the prosecution lacked legal basis.

Arguments of the Petitioners (Patanjali & Founders):

• Lack of Evidentiary Detail: Petitioners contended that the complaint did not specify any false statements nor describe how the advertisements were misleading.
• No Expert Report: They emphasized absence of any technical or expert opinion confirming the misleading nature of the ads.
• Time-Barred Allegations: Petitioners argued that most alleged offences pre-dated April 2023, exceeding the one-year limitation period under Section 468 CrPC.
• Judicial Review of Cognizance: They challenged the summoning order for lacking judicial application—being a composite order covering 20 offences across two years, which they said is impermissible .
• Independence from Supreme Court remarks: Petitioners maintained that Supreme Court observations in related contempt proceedings could not substitute for legally sufficient allegations in their case.

Arguments of the Respondent (State of Uttarakhand):

• Reliance on Ayush Ministry Letters: The State argued that the letters supplied the necessary basis alleging misleading claims.
• Prima Facie Foundation: It contended that receipt of official correspondence was sufficient to initiate cognizance.
• Subsidiary Nature of Expert Input: The State maintained that expert inputs could be developed during trial and were not essential at the cognizance stage.
• Continued Regulatory Concern: Highlighted that the issue had also triggered license suspensions for several products in April 2024 and attracted Supreme Court attention.

High Court’s Reasoning & Judgment:

• Absence of Falsity Allegation: Justice Bharti Sharma found that the complaint offered no specifics—no statements identified as false, no incidents alleged, and no manner of misleading outlined
• No Expert Opinion Provided: The Court emphasized that prosecution must attach an expert report or equivalent material showing falsity; mere Ministry letters lacked this substance.
• Lack of Judicial Mind in Summoning: The impugned composite cognizance order for 20 offences was deemed legally irregular and devoid of judicial application.
• Time-barred Claims: Offences occurring prior to April 2023 were found time-barred under Section 468 CrPC, invalidating their cognizance.
• Supreme Court Observations Irrelevant: The Court held that Supreme Court’s rebukes in a separate contempt case could not be invoked to shore up a deficient complaint .
• Legal Conclusion: The criminal proceedings were quashed; summons set aside. The petition was allowed under Section 582 BNSS.

Broader Implications:

• Evidence Threshold in Ad Regulations: Authorities must attach concrete factual or expert evidence—mere advisory letters are insufficient to prosecute.
• Importance of Judicial Application: Magistrates must demonstrate reasoning when taking cognizance, especially for multi-offence complaints.
• Limitation Law Strictness: Delay in prosecution cannot be recouped via late charges—claims must fall within codified time limits.
• Separation from Higher Court Remarks: Supreme Court comments, unless part of binding precedent, are not curative for underpinning deficient complaints.