HC stays trial court proceedings against Gautam Gambhir in drug hoarding case

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court Monday stayed the proceedings before a trial court against cricketer-turned-politician Gautam Gambhir, his foundation and others in a case related to the alleged illegal stocking and distribution of COVID-19 drugs.

Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar sought response from the Delhi drug control authority on the petition by Gautam Gambhir foundation, Gambhir and his family members who are accused in the case, assailing the criminal complaint and the summoning order passed by the trial court in the case.

Listing the matter for further hearing on December 8, the judge said, "Till then the proceedings are stayed".

Drug Control Department has filed a complaint against the Member of Parliament from East Delhi, his foundation, its CEO Aprajita Singh, his mother and wife, Seema Gambhir and Natasha Gambhir, respectively — who are both trustees in the foundation — for offences under section 18(c) read with section 27(b)(ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.

Section 18(c) prohibits manufacture, sale distribution of drugs without a licence and Section 27(b)(ii) makes sale, distribution without valid licence punishable with imprisonment for a term, not be less than three years but which may extend to five years and with fine.

Senior advocate ANS Nadkarni, representing the petitioners, submitted that no case was made out against his clients as the foundation was distributing free COVID-19 medicines through a medical camp and that it was an admitted fact that such medicines were not being "sold for a price".

Lawyer Nandita Rao, appearing for the Drug Control Department, stated that a license to deal in such medicines was necessary and the law did not distinguish between sale and distribution.

In his petition filed through lawyer Jai Anant Dehadrai, the petitioners have said that carrying out a charitable activity during an unprecedented catastrophe did not require any licenses and initiating criminal proceedings for such acts would be a gross miscarriage of justice.

"The charitable activities of the petitioners in procuring medicines and oxygen cylinders to be given away under the supervision of doctors for free is not covered as an activity requiring license under Section of 18 (c) of the Act, 1940, and therefore, would be not an offence under Section 27 of the Act of 1940. Thus, at a threshold analysis itself, it is evident that the Impugned Complaint is a gross abuse of process of the Hon''ble Court," the plea said.