Delhi High Court Dismisses Criminal Case Against Gautam Gambhir Over COVID-19 Drug Allegations

Court Ruling in Favor of Gambhir

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has recently dismissed a criminal case against Gautam Gambhir, the head coach of the Indian cricket team, along with his foundation and several others, who were accused of unlawfully storing and distributing COVID-19 medications during the pandemic.

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna announced the decision, stating, "the criminal complaint is quashed."

This ruling came in response to a petition that contested the summons issued by a trial court against Gambhir, his wife, mother, and the foundation, seeking to annul the criminal complaint.

The complaint was lodged by the Delhi government's Drug Control Department against Gambhir, who was serving as the MP for East Delhi at the time, along with his foundation, its CEO Aprajita Singh, and his family members, Seema Gambhir and Natasha Gambhir, both of whom are trustees of the foundation.

The allegations were based on violations of Section 18(c) and Section 27(b)(ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, which prohibits the manufacture, sale, and distribution of drugs without a proper license.

Section 27(b)(ii) stipulates that selling or distributing drugs without a valid license can lead to imprisonment for a minimum of three years, potentially extending to five years, along with fines.

On September 20, 2021, the high court had previously halted the trial court proceedings and requested a response from the Delhi drug control authority regarding the petition filed by Gambhir and his foundation.

They contested both the criminal complaint and the trial court's summoning order.

On April 9, the high court lifted the stay on the trial court proceedings, prompting Gambhir to submit a new application for the recall of the order.

The Drug Control Department's counsel opposed this application, arguing that Gambhir should have first approached the revisional court of sessions instead of going directly to the high court.

The prosecution's counsel maintained that the petitioners had indeed distributed drugs without a valid license, asserting that their only defense was that they had not sold the drugs.