Dismissed

Bhagwat Saran and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC17 Sept 2024A482/31134/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court dismissed an application under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of proceedings under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The Court held that the respondent is a licensed dealer who failed to produce documents regarding the purchase of medicines, making out a prima facie case against them.

What did the court decide?

Application for quashing of proceedings under u/s 32 Drugs and Cosmetics Act dismissed as no good reason exists to entertain the application.

Bhagwat Saran and Another vs State of U.P. — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:151445

¶2

Court No. - 79

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 31134 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Bhagwat Saran And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Tiwari,Vijay Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Kamlesh Kumar Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

The instant application has been filed seeking quashing of NonBailable Warrant dated 28.11.2023 passed by Additional Session Judge, Court No.-5, Rampur in Complaint Case No.- 01 of 2021 (State of U.P. Vs. Bhagwat Saran and another) under Sections 18(1)(i), 18(b) read with Sections 16 & 17A(f) under Sections 27(b)(i), 27(d) and 28 of Drugs and Cosmetics Act.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicant herein is duly licenced dealer of the medicines and on the relevant date his licence was valid.

¶9

Admittedly, the medicines of which the sample has been collected from his shop were manufactured by M/s Kaithey Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., Delhi-Dehradun Road, Bamanheri, Muzaffar Nagar and there is no report of analysist that such medicines of which the sample was collected by the Drug Inspector, in any way, were sub-standard quality. The instant complaint has been filed against the applicant herein only for the reasons that he has not been able to produce the relevant documents with regard to the purchase of the said medicines.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that since the applicant herein is duly licenced small dealer of medicines, therefore, no offence is made out against the applicants herein. Further there is no analysist report available on record to show that the medicines seized were of sub-standard quality therefore no offence is made out against the applicants herein therefore seeking

¶11

quashing of entire proceedings of the instant case.

¶12

Per contra learned A.G.A. submits that admittedly the applicant is not the manufacturer of the medicines and he was duly licenced dealer of medicines on the relevant date. However, he can be exonerated from the instant case only when he is able to produce the relevant documents to show that the said medicines were purchased from duly licenced manufacturer, distributor, dealer thereof in terms of Section 19(3) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. Repeatedly, the documents were asked from the applicants herein to produce the documents with regard to purchase or sale of the said medicines. However, he never replied to the notices issued by the Drug Inspector, therefore, the instant complaint under Section 32 of Drugs and Cosmetics Act has been filed by the Drug Inspector. There is no illegality in the complaint filed by the Drug Inspector against the applicants herein.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. further states that the instant complaint case was filed on 29.10.2021. Since then the applicant herein deliberately avoiding the process of the Court and has never appeared for more than three years and the bailable warrants as well as non-bailable warrants have already been issued. In view thereof, no interference is called for in the instant case.

¶14

Having heard the rival submissions made by learned counsels for the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the record of the case. From the record of the case, it is apparent that the complaint under Section 32 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act has been filed on 29.10.2021 by the Drug Inspector for the offences under Sections 18(a)(i), 18(b), 18B read with Section 16 & 17A(f) under Sections 27(b)(i), 27(d) and 28 of Drugs and Cosmetics Act. In the instant case it is undisputed that the applicant herein is a holder of the drug licence. The applicant no.2 is the duly licenced drug dealer, who runs the business in the name of M/s Guru Kripa Agencies and on 20.11.2019 the Drug Inspector went to shop of the applicants herein, the applicant no.1 was present there in capacity of salesman and applicant no.2 was the proprietor of the said M/s Guru Kripa Agencies. The Drug Inspector has taken three samples of the medicines stored in the aforesaid shop and has offered the price thereof in terms of Section 70A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. However, no independent witness had appeared in the said seizure procedure. The said samples were allegedly sent for the Government Analyist, Lucknow, however till date no report with regard to said medicines has been received from the Analyst. Vide letters dated 31.12.2019 and 22.02.2020 the applicants were asked to produce the relevant documents with regard to purchase

¶15

of the said medicines, however both the notices were not replied by the applicants herein. In view thereof, the instant complaint case has been filed.

¶16

Admittedly, the applicants are not the manufacturer of the said medicines and the applicant no.2 was duly licened dealer of the medicines and it was his duty to disclose the name of the dealer, manufacturer or distributor from whom the applicants had purchased the said medicines and the applicants have deliberately failed to provide such information, therefore, prima facie case is made out against the applicants herein, therefore, this Court do not find any good reason to entertain the instant application and the same is accordingly dismissed .

¶17

Order Date :- 17.9.2024 Virendra

¶18

Digitally signed by :- VIRENDRA KUMAR BHARTEEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Bhagwat Saran and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhagwat Saran and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ravindra and Anothers vs State of Up and Another

Rajeev Jain vs State of U.P. and Another

Shankar Lal Agrawal vs State of U.P. and Another

Subedar and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Keshav Singh Raghav and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Pradeep Kumar and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another