the consumer. This consequence is in fact integral part of manufacture since manufacture of drug without its sale, has no meaning. The misbranded drugs having delirious and dangerous consequence on the consumer, may spread in various parts of the Country. It is not possible to take the view that the manufacturer can be prosecuted only at the place of manufacture of drugs, because such stand may lead to escape of defaulting manufacturers from prosecution. There may be cases where the prosecution is satisfied that in view of Section 19(3) of the Act, the seller is not liable for prosecution. Drug Inspectors, under Section 22 of the Act, are empowered to take samples within local limits of the area in which they are appointed. They can file complaints only in the Court having jurisdiction over the local limits of the area in which they are appointed. In such eventualities, if the seller cannot be prosecuted in view of Section 19(3) of the Act, the drug inspector will have no power to file complaint in the Court in whose jurisdiction the adulterated drug was manufactured. This would mean that the manufacturers of drugs would not be subject to prosecution in the State in which the adulterated drug is found for the purpose of sale and distribution. Moreover, under Section 32 of the Act even aggrieved consumer can file complaint where the adulterated drug was sold. It is the consumer who ultimately bears the brunt of such drug. In the absence prosecution of seller, who may be protected under Section 19(3) of the Act, the consumer will be forced to file the complaint at the place where the drug in question was manufactured which may be far off place. Moreover, even though initially the prosecution may be launched against both, the manufacturer and the seller, but in the course of trial, the seller may establish that he is protected under Section 19(3) of the Act and, in such eventualities, the trial against the manufacturer may also be questioned on this count.
