Under the Wildlife Protection Act, the Bombay High Court dismisses cases against a pharmaceutical company, ruling that the cancer drug Camptothecin is not considered forest produce, bringing an end to a legal battle that persisted for 16 years
Case: Fresenisu Kabi Oncology Ltd. vs The State of Maharashtra
Coram: Justices AS Gadkari and SC Chandak
Case No.: CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO 667 OF 2010
Court Observation: “It is well known, there is a difference between physical change and chemical change. Physical change can be brought about easily and at the same time, the original material can also be brought back easily, but it is not possible in the case chemical change.”
“There is no material against the Petitioners showing that before purchasing and till receiving said Camptothecin, they knew that it was derived/extracted from the chips of the stolen Narkya trees…,”
“That apart, it is highly improbable that Petitioner No.1 company would buy an illegal “Forest Produce” for such a huge price, that too at the risk of its prosecution for serious offences… In the backdrop of the discussion, we are of the considered view that continuation of the impugned cases registered against the Petitioners at the instance of Respondent No.2 would be abuse of the process of law.”
Previous Posts
Keywords
Under the Wildlife Protection Act
Related Articles
- Bombay High Court (Full Bench) states that a victim cannot appeal under Section 14-A of the SC/ST Act for acquittal or bail in cases involving both POCSO and SC/ST Acts
- Regarding Section 60 of the Copyright Act, the Bombay High Court emphasizes that an inquiry into ‘groundless legal proceedings’ cannot conclusively determine the question of copyright infringement
- Gautam Navlakha’s bail order for the Bhima Koregaon-Elgar Parishad case, points out that there is no evidence indicating his involvement in a terrorist act: Bombay High Court

