Dismissed

Ms Ultratech Pharmaceuticals v. Union of India

Himachal Pradesh HC9 May 2017CR.R/76/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal revision petition challenged the summoning order against drug manufacturing partners based on a substandard drug case. The High Court held that prima facie material existed to summon all partners and dismissed the revision, distinguishing a prior judgment on specific liability grounds.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed; parties directed to appear before trial court; file returned to trial court.

Ms Ultratech Pharmaceuticals Vs Union of India — Cheque Dishonour | Himachal Pradesh HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

*Criminal Revision No.*	*76 of 2016*
*Reserved on :*	*3.5.2017*
*Decided on:*	09.05.2017

¶4

M/S Ultratec Pharmaceutical and others .. Petitioners .

¶5

Versus

¶6

Union of India Coram:

¶7

.. . Respondent

¶8

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chander Bhusan Barowalia , Judge. Whether approved for reporting? Yes. For the petitioners : Mr. Sunil Awasthi, Advocate For the respondent : Mr. Ashok Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General of India with Mr. Ajay Chauhan, Advocate. Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge

¶9

Present criminal revision is maintained

¶10

under Section 397 read with section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for setting aside the summoning order dated 18.4.2015 in criminal complaint No. 123/3 of 2015 in case titled Union of India Versus M/s Ultratech Pharmaceuticals and Ors.

¶11

Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that as per the prosecution story on 11.11.2013 the respondent lifted samples of drugs for test/analysis from Government Analyst, including the subject matter of the complaint, i.e, CP-200 tab manufactured by M/s Ultratech Pharmaceuticals, village Tipra, Haripur Road, Post Office Barotiwala,

¶12

¶13

District Solan, HP. Thereafter one sealed sample, portion of the drug in question, was sent to Government Analyst i.e, Regional Drugs Testing in Laboratory, Sector 39 C Chandigarh. The respondent received the test report of C- Biotec Ear Drop as “Not of Standard Quality” vide Test Report No. RDTL/627/13-14, dated 13.5.2014 as the sample does not conform the IP 2010 standard with respect to “Dissolution”.

¶14

As per prosecution, the accused No. 1 to 9 are responsible for the conduct of the business of the firm and they are manufactures of the drug and they are liable for manufacturing substandard drug and accordingly the learned Court below issued the summons to all the petitioners as to appear before the Court below on the basis of material before the Court below for offence. The petitioners in the present petition have averred that no material was there before the Court below to issue summons to the petitioners who were the accused in the complaint maintained by the respondent and the order passed by the Court below is against the law. It is their case that the learned ACJM Nalagarh, District Solan H.P. without going through the allegations made in the complaint

¶15

¶16

took cognizance and issued process against the petitioners which is against the law. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the complaint was listed on 18.4.2015 before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Nalagarh, District Solan, HP, who took cognizance and issued process against the petitioners vide order dated 18.4.2015, which is reproduced as under:

¶18

“Heard. This complaint has been filed by the Drugs Inspector, Central Drugs Standard Control Organization, (C.D.S.C.O),Sub Zone, Chandigarh in discharge of her official duty and thus, the requirement of recording preliminary evidence is dispensed with by taking recourse to the proviso of Section 200 Cr.P.C

¶19

Having regard to the allegations set-forth in the complaint and documentary evidence furnished in proof thereof, I am satisfied that thee are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused persons for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940.

¶20

Let the accused persons be accordingly summoned for 18.7.2015.”

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioners has also argued that summoning order passed by the learned Court below is against the law and without appreciating the facts

¶22

¶23

which has come on record and is liable to be set-aside. On the other hand, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India has argued that if the petitioners have any cause, they can always go to the Court below and put up their case, as they are only summoned for the time being. He has further argued that as all the petitioners are responsible for working and manufacturing of the drugs, being partners, they are rightly proceeded against by the learned Court below.

¶24

To appreciate the arguments of learned counsel for the parties I have gone through the record carefully.

¶25

It is clear from the record after receiving the report of Public Analyst that the drug manufactured by the petitioners was found substandard and the learned Court below on the complaint being presented by the respondent proceeded against the complainant and the summons were issued. This Court finds that as all the partners are liable for the manufacturing of the drug, being the partners, the learned Court below has issued summons to all the partners. After being satisfied from the record, this Court also finds that prima facie there are grounds to proceed against all the partners i.e

¶26

¶27

petitioners. The liability of the partners is dependent upon the evidence which will be adduced on behalf of the respective parties and at the stage of issuance of notice under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 under the Act, the only requirement is prima facie satisfaction of the Court. In the present case, there is sufficient material to proceed against the petitioners.

¶28

In the similar case maintained by the petitioners before this Court vide Criminal Revision No. 402 of 2015 dated 24.12.2015, titled M/S Ultratech Pharmaceuticals and others Vs. Union of India, this Hon’ble Court has dismissed the petition of the petitioners and the judgment is fully applicable to the facts of the present case.

¶29

The next submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that all the partners were not liable as only those partners are liable, who are responsible for manufacturing of the drugs and to support his contention, he has relied upon the judgment of this

¶30

Hon’ble Court in Cr.MMO No. 29 of 2014 dated 22.4.2015 titled Ashok Kumar Tyagi vs. State of H.P. and others.

¶31

¶32

After going through the cited case, this Court finds that at this moment there is no material on record including the licence to come to conclusion that which of the partner is liable. So, the judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case, as discussed hereinabove, there are no grounds to interfere with the summoning order issued by the learned Court below.

¶33

Accordingly, revision petition is required to be dismissed and is thus, dismissed. Parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 31^st May, 2017. Observations made hereinabove will not effect merits of case in any manner and will be strictly confined for disposal of revision petition only. File of learned trial Court along with certify copy of order be sent back forthwith. Revision petition is disposed of accordingly. Pending application if any also disposed of, in the above terms.

¶34

(Chander Bhusan Barowalia) Judge

¶35

9^th May, 2017 (veena)

Ms Ultratech Pharmaceuticals v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Ultratech Pharmaceuticals v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rattan Lal Vs H.P.State Forest Corpn.

State of Hp Vs Vicky Alias Boxer

Maina Devi Vs Dinu Ram deceased through Lrs. Smt. Baru Devi

Mehardeen Vs State of Hp

State of Hp Vs Ravi Dutt

Rajesh Singh Vs State of Hp