New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has refused to stay criminal proceedings against the Gautam Gambhir Foundation (GGF) and its members in a case related to unauthorised distribution of a Covid drug in 2021, The Indian Express reported.
The members of the board include Indian cricket team head coach Gautam Gambhir.
The HC in September 2021 had stayed proceedings over a criminal complaint, filed by Delhi’s Drugs Control Department against GGF before a Rohini court, under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.
Unauthorised stocking and distribution of a Covid drug was allegedly carried out at a medical camps organized by the Foundation during the second wave of the pandemic in Delhi.
The accused in the case are GGF trustees including then BJP MP Gautam Gambhir, his wife Natasha Gambhir, his mother Seema Gambhir, and CEO Aparajita Singh.
The Drugs Control Department alleged that the Gautam Gambhir Foundation had no licence for stocking or distributing the drugs including medical oxygen.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna on April 9 vacated the interim stay, before listing the matter for further hearing at the HC on November 26.
Appearing for the Foundation and its trustees, lawyer Jai Anant Dehadrai sought a restoration of the stay, requesting that the accused be protected till the HC takes up the matter next in November .
Jai Anant Dehadrai pleaded for Gambhir that ‘Please see who I am, I’m a former captain of the Indian team, a former MP… Offence alleged is I, through my Foundation, distributed drugs for charitable purposes during Covid-19… My wife and aged mother will be summoned (by the trial court) if (proceedings) not stayed… they will be summoned for charitable work… Delhi health system had collapsed at the time, I was providing drugs and oxygen… surely that should count for something?’
However, Justice Krishna made it clear that ‘Don’t try to impress us with what is irrelevant… trying name dropping as if it will work in court… it doesn’t work… instead of saying there was no licence (to distribute drugs), you’re trying to say a b c d.’
While refusing to stay the proceedings, the court posted the matter next for consideration on August 29.