Kandula Raghava Rao and Noorulamin Mohammed Saheb, directors of Amazon Seller Services Private Limited (ASSPL), had challenged a notice issued by a magistrate court based on a complaint by the Food and Drugs Administration for alleged violation of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and Information Technology Act.
Mumbai:A sessions court here has quashed notices issued by a magistrate against two directors of Amazon Seller Services Private Limited for illegal online sale of abortion pills, noting that Amazon was only a platform and not the seller, while terming the lower court’s order “perverse”.
Additional sessions judge Mujibodeen Shaikh, in a February 4 order, made available on Wednesday, stated that the order issued by the magistrate’s court was “perverse, grossly erroneous, and cryptic” as it didn’t follow the procedure mandated in law.
“Amazon is not the seller but is a platform. Gurunanak Enterprises, registered with Amazon, is the seller of the tablets on the platform of Amazon,” it said.
The court noted that Amazon had entered into an agreement with Gurunanak Enterprises, which specifically mentioned that prohibited drugs should not be kept for sale.
Kandula Raghava Rao and Noorulamin Mohammed Saheb, directors of Amazon Seller Services Private Limited (ASSPL), had challenged a notice issued by a magistrate court based on a complaint by the Food and Drugs Administration for alleged violation of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and Information Technology Act.
The complainant placed the order for abortion tablets on the Amazon platform, which purportedly did not ask doctor’s prescription and delivered pills.
As per the complaint lodged against Gurunanak Enterprises as well as ASSPL directors, abortion pills displayed with the names “Woman Abortion Pills” and “Safe Abort Tablets” were available on the portal of the e-retail giant.
Rao and Saheb challenged the magistrate’s order on the ground that it was illegal, arguing that the magistrate ought to have carried out an inquiry himself or directed the police.
They further claimed that the magistrate’s order was cryptic, vague, and devoid of valid reasons.
While quashing the “perverse, grossly erroneous and cryptic” order of the magistrate’s court, sessions court judge Shaikh noted that it did not follow the procedure mandated in law.
The magistrate ought to have postponed issuance of notice and directed an investigation by police or inquired into the case himself, the sessions court said.