Sanju C Dutt Vs State of Jharkhand

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 2610 of 2024

Sanju C. Dutt @ Sanju Dutt (Aadhar no. 803828530463) aged age 45 years (approx.) S/o, Amod Dutt, Director, M/s Ontop Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. having its office at 9D, Bommasandra Industrial Area, Hosur Road, P.O.Chandapura, P.S.- Chandapura, Hosur Road, Dist.Bangalore 560099 and also at : # 556, 8^th Main, Cakewalk, 4^th Block Koramangala, Bangalore South, Agara, Bangalore, P.O.- Koramangala, P.S.- Koramangala (HSR Layout), Dist.Banjalore Urban, Karnataka- 560034

¶3

...... Petitioner/ Accused no. 3

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand

¶6

Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of Jharkhand, At : State Drug Control Directorate, Jharkhand, P.O. & P.S. – Namkum, Dist.- Ranchi -834010, Jharkhand Through : The Complainant / Prosecutor: Sri Ram Kumar Jha, S/o Sri Chandrakant Jha, Drugs Inspector, Drug Controller Administration, East Singhbhum II, Hume Pipe Road, Sakshi, Jamshedpur, P.O. & P.S.- Sakchi, Dist.- East Singhbhum, Jharkhand ….. Opposite Parties

¶7

For the Petitioners :Mr. Namit Kumar, Adv. Ms. Shubhangi Jain, Adv. Ms. Preety Sinha, Adv. For the State :Mr. P.D. Agrawal, Spl. PP

¶8

P R E S E N T

¶9

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶10

By the Court:- Heard the parties.

¶11

This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 with a prayer for to quash the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Complaint Case No. 179 of 2016, pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Jamshedpur and further to quash the order dated 20.01.2016, passed in the said Complaint Case No. 179 of 2016 by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur whereby and where under cognizance of

¶12

1

¶13

Cr.M.P. No. 2610 of 2024

¶14

the offence punishable under Section 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 has been taken and summoning order has been passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur and prayer has also been made for consequential and interim relief.

¶15

The brief facts of the case is that the Drug Inspector visited the premises of M/s Sana Enterprises on 16.12.2014 and took samples of drug Sizon -5 (Cetirizine Hydrochloride Dispersible Tablets) and issued Form No. 17 (A) and divided the sample into four portions. One portion was given to the Proprietor of M/s Sana Enterprises. The Drug Inspector sent the second part of the above mentioned drug sample to Government Analyst. The Government Analyst declared the said sample was not of standard quality as the content of Cetirizine Hydrochloride was less than the standard I.P. limit. The Drug Inspector informed M/s Sana Enterprises about the report of the Government Analyst. The Drug Inspector also sent a notice to M/s L.B. Associates who supplied the drugs to M/s Sana Enterprises about the drugs being of sub-standard quality. M/s L.B. Associates informed that the said drug was manufactured by M/s Systopic Laboratories (P) Ltd and ultimately through the channel of suppliers, it was intimated to the Drug Inspector that M/s Ontop Pharmaceuticals Private Ltd. was the manufacturer of the drugs. On 09.07.2015, a sample was handed over to the authorized person of M/s Ontop Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd in accordance with Section 23(4)(iii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. Thereafter the complaint was filed by the Drug Inspector and on the basis of the same, cognizance has been taken vide order dated 20.01.2016 as already indicated above.

¶16

Drawing attention of the court to the order dated 19^th June, 2024, passed by this Court in CrMP No. 1533 of 2023, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the counter affidavit filed by the State in that case, it has been mentioned by the State that learned court in Jamshedpur sent fourth portion of the

¶17

2

¶18

Cr.M.P. No. 2610 of 2024

¶19

sample to the Director of the Central Drugs Laboratory, Kolkata for re-testing. The Director-in-Charge of the Central Drugs Laboratory, Kolkata, declared the results of the re-testing and the report revealed that the said fourth portion of the sample of Sizon 5, seized by the Drug Inspector was of standard quality but the opposite party has taken the plea that due to unforeseen circumstances, the report of the Director-in-Charge of the Central Drugs Laboratory was not received either by the learned court in Jamshedpur or in the office of the Drug Inspector, Jamshedpur. It is then submitted that in view of the said report of Director-inCharge of the Central Drugs Laboratory, Kolkata, continuation of the criminal proceeding will amount to abuse of process of law. Hence, it is submitted that the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Complaint Case No. 179 of 2016, pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Jamshedpur including the order dated 20.01.2016, passed in the said Complaint Case No. 179 of 2016 by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur be quashed and set aside.

¶20

The learned Spl. P.P. fairly submits that in view of the report submitted by the Director-in-Charge of the Central Drugs Laboratory, Kolkata as the fourth standard was found to be of standard quality, continuation of the criminal proceeding will amount to abuse of process of law.

¶21

Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, as the undisputed fact remains that the fourth sample upon being tested by the Central Drugs Laboratory, Kolkata, it was found that the sample was of standard quality, hence this Court is of the considered view that the continuation of the proceeding of the Complaint Case No. 179 of 2016 will amount to abuse of process of law and this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Complaint Case No. 179 of 2016, pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Jamshedpur including the order dated 20.01.2016, passed in the said Complaint Case No. 179 of 2016 by

¶22

3

¶23

Cr.M.P. No. 2610 of 2024

¶24

the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur be quashed and set aside qua the petitioner.

¶25

Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Complaint Case No. 179 of 2016, pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Jamshedpur including the order dated 20.01.2016, passed in the said Complaint Case No. 179 of 2016 by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner.

¶26

In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed.

¶27

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)

¶28

High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated, the 11^th September, 2024 Smita /AFR

¶29

4

¶30

Cr.M.P. No. 2610 of 2024

Sanju C Dutt v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanju C Dutt v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Supriya Sharma Vs Sulochana Sharma

Polavarapu Malikharjuna Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sheela Choudhary Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rishi Nandan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Budhan Ganjhu Vs Parwati Devi

Om Prakash Saw Vs the State of Jharkhand