Partly allowed

Amster Labs v. State at the Instance the Drugs Inspector

Karnataka HC12 Sept 2023CRL.P/1193/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal petition partially. It dismissed the petition regarding the manufacturer and chemists but quashed proceedings against the accused firm partners, holding they were not responsible for manufacturing the sub-standard drug as alleged under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.

What did the court decide?

The criminal proceedings in C.C.No.2566/2022 in so far as they relate to accused Nos.2 to 4 are quashed.

Amster Labs Vs State at the Instance the Drugs Inspector — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:33040 CRL.P No. 1193 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1193 OF 2023

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

AMSTER LABS, VIII SURAJ MAJRA GUJIRANS, NEW TOLL PLAZA, BADDI - 173 205. DISTRICT SOLAN H. P., REP. BY UTTARAJITH SINGH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS.

¶7

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶8

UTTARAJITH SINGH, S/O SRI. MANMOHAN, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, PARTNER OF AT FIRM, M/S AMSTER LABS, VIII SURAJ MAJRA GUJJRAN, NEAR TOLL PLAZA, BADDI - 173 205. DSITRICT SOLAN H. P.,

¶9

SRI. RAJENDER KUMA RAHEJA, S/O SRI. AMRIT LAL RAHEJA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, PARTNER OF A1 FIRM, M/S AMSTER LABS, VIII SURAJ MAJRA GUJJRAN, NEAR TOLL PLAZA, BADDI - 173 205. DSITRICT SOLAN H. P.,

¶10

SRI. AMIT GUPTA, S/O SRI. SURESH GUPTA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

¶11

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:33040 CRL.P No. 1193 of 2023

¶12

PARTNER OF A1 FIRM, M/S AMSTER LABS, VIII SURAJ MAJRA GUJJRAN, NEAR TOLL PLAZA, BADDI - 173 205. DSITRICT SOLAN H. P.,

¶13

SRI. DIG VIJAI PANDEY, S/O SRI. KESHAW PANDEY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, APPROVED MANUFACTURING CHEMIST OF A1 FIRM, M/S AMSTER LABS, VIII SURAJ MAJRA GUJJRAN, BADDI - 173 205. DSITRICT SOLAN H. P.,

¶14

SMT. SALMA CHANDEL, W/O RAJIV KUMAR CHANDEL, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, APPROVED ANALYTICAL CHEMIST OF A1 FIRM, M/S AMSTER LABS, VIII SURAJ MAJRA GUJJRAN, NEAR TOLL PLAZA, BADDI - 173 205. DSITRICT SOLAN H. P.,

¶15

…PETITIONERS

¶16

(BY SRI. DESU REDDY G., ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

STATE AT THE INSTANCE OF THE DRUGS INSPECTOR, OFFICE OF THE ASST. DRUGS CONTROLLER, OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL DEPUTY, DRUGS CONTROLLER, MANGALURU.

¶19

…RESPONDENT

¶20

(BY SRI. M. R. PATIL, HCGP)

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.2566/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE II JMFC MANGALURU

¶22

¶23

NC: 2023:KHC:33040 CRL.P No. 1193 of 2023

¶24

FILED AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR THE ALLEGED VIOLIATION OF SEC.18 (A)(i) AND P/U/S.27(d) OF DRUGS AND COSMETICS ACT 1940 AND RULES THERE UNDER VIDE ANNEXURE-A TO C.

¶25

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

ORDER

¶27

The petitioners are sought to be prosecuted for contravention of Section 18 (a) (i) and punishable under Section 27 (d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short).

¶28

The respondent filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. for contravention of aforesaid offences. The summary of the complaint is that the sample of the legal sample drug was collected by the Assistant Drugs Controller concerned from the premises of the M/s. Falcon Pharma, Balmatta road, Mangaluru, the retailer of the subject drug and the sample drug collected was sent to the Government Analyst for the purpose of test/analysis. Government Analyst submitted a report stating that the sample drug manufactured by the accused No.1 company is of sub-standard quality. Thereafter, the Assistant Drugs Controller issued a notice to the accused No.1 company on 24.07.2020 along with the original of test report in Form No.13 to confirm the manufacturer and sale of impugned drug and to furnish document mentioned in the communication. The accused No.1 in turn replied to the notice

¶29

¶30

NC: 2023:KHC:33040 CRL.P No. 1193 of 2023

¶31

confirming the sale of the impugned drug from M/s. MDC Pharmaceuticals Limited.

¶32

Learned Magistrate after perusing the complaint took cognizance of the aforesaid offences and issued summons. Taking exception to the same, the accused No.1 to 6 are before this Court.

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the absence of any material that the accused Nos.2 to 4, who are the partners of the accused No.1 firm were in-charge and responsible for manufacture of subject drugs, the petitioners cannot be held vicariously guilty along with the accused No.1 firm as specified under Section 34 of the Act. He further submits that the shelf life of the subject drug expired on May, 2021 and the private complaint was filed on 11.10.2022. Thus, depriving the petitioners of their right to send the subject drug for re-analysis to the Central Laboratory as specified under Section 25 (4) of the Act.

¶34

Learned HCGP would submit that allegations made in the complaint discloses that the petitioner No.1, the manufacturer of the subject drug and the other accused, who are the Directors and Chemical Analysts have manufactured the subject drug which is declared as of sub-standard quality and the same constitute the commission of the offences alleged against them. Therefore, the learned Magistrate has rightly

¶35

¶36

NC: 2023:KHC:33040 CRL.P No. 1193 of 2023

¶37

taken cognizance and the same does not warrant any interference.

¶38

Considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties.

¶39

The Government Analyst Drugs Laboratory, Karnataka sent a report dated 14.07.2020 declaring that the subject drug is not of standard quality. The shelf life of the subject drug is till May, 2021. The Assistant Drugs Control Officer issued a notice to the accused No.1 on 24.07.2020 along with the original of the test report which indicates that the subject drug manufactured by accused No.1 is not of standard quality. Whether the petitioner No.1 - accused No.1 has been deprived of its right to send the subject drug for re-analysis to the Central Laboratory is a matter which can be considered at the time of trial and not at this stage. Petitioner Nos.2 to 4 - Accused Nos.2 to 4 are the partners of the firm, which has manufactured the subject drug and the subject drug was manufactured under the supervision and control of Chemical Analysts i.e., accused Nos.5 and 6.

¶40

The complaint averments does not disclose that the accused Nos.2 to 4 were the partners of the firm who were incharge of and in supervision of the manufacture of the subject drug which was responsibility entrusted to accused Nos.5 and 6, who are the Chemical Analysts. Section 34 of the Act deals with offences by company and it specifies that where an offence

¶41

¶42

NC: 2023:KHC:33040 CRL.P No. 1193 of 2023

¶43

under this Act has been committed by a company which includes of firm, every person who at the time the offence was committed was in charge of and was responsible of the company for the conduct of the business of the company as well as the company shall be deemed to be guilty of the offences.

¶44

In the instant case, the subject drug was not manufactured under the control and supervision of the accused Nos.2 to 4. However, it is alleged that the same was manufactured under the control and supervision of the Chemical Analysts. Hence, the petitioner Nos.2 to 4 cannot be held vicariously guilty along with accused No.1 as specified under Section 34 of the Act. Therefore, the continuation of the criminal proceedings in absence of essential elements to constitute the commission of offences alleged against the petitioner Nos.2 to 4 will be an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶45

ORDER

¶46

i. Criminal petition is allowed-in-part.

¶47

ii. The criminal petition in so far as it relates to petitioner Nos.1, 5 and 6 stands dismissed.

¶48

iii. The criminal petition in so far as it relates to petitioner Nos.2 to 4 is hereby allowed.

¶49

¶50

NC: 2023:KHC:33040 CRL.P No. 1193 of 2023

¶51

iv. The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.2566/2022 pending on the file of the II JMFC, Mangalore in so far as it relates to accused Nos.2 to 4 is hereby quashed.

¶52

v. Liberty is reserved with the petitioner Nos.1, 5 and 6/accused Nos.1, 5 and 6 to urge the grounds in this petition before the trial Court.

¶53

vi. All contentions are kept open.

¶54

Sd/JUDGE

¶55

MH/CT:PH

Amster Labs v. State at the Instance the Drugs Inspector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amster Labs v. State at the Instance the Drugs Inspector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Ramesh Kumar Vs Smt Shyamala Shree v

Sri.K.N.Shreyas Vs Sri.Deepchand Jain

Sri. Raghuram Reddy Vs State of Karnataka

Gilbert Sequera Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. Mohammed Basheer Vs the State of Karnataka

Rizwan @ Rizu Vs State of Karnataka