Challenge to orders dismissing application for cognizance of offences regarding adulterated medicine. Court finds no illegality in non-taking cognizance and dismisses the petition, noting cognizance may still be taken if evidence arises.
Misc. petition and stay application dismissed; no cognizance taken at this stage.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
ORDER
SB Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.904/2004 Abhimanyu & ors versus State of Rajasthan & anr 3.1.2013
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MN BHANDARI
Mr Kartar Singh – for petitioner
Mr Peeyush Kumar, PP – for the State
BY THE COURT:
By this misc. petition, challenge is made to the order dated 4.4.2002 and subsequent order on revision dated 18.5.2004.
Learned counsel for petitioners submits that application was moved for cognizance of offence against the manufacturer M/s Elite Chemical & Pharmaceutical Pvt Ltd, Jaipur and supplier of the medicines M/s Mangla Pharma, Jaipur. The tablets recovered from the petitioners were manufactured by M/s Elite Chemical & Pharmaceutical and supplied by M/s Mangla Pharma respectively. The application aforesaid was erroneously dismissed ignoring the fact that purchase of medicines
2
was from M/s Mangla Pharma and it was manufactured by M/s Elite Chemical & Pharmaceutical Pvt Ltd. Accordingly, both the orders may be set aside and cognizance may be taken against the manufacturer and supplier.
I have considered submissions made by learned counsel for parties and perused the record.
Perusal of the order dated 4.4.2002 shows that the tablets recovered from the petitioners were found to be adulterated/ sub-standard. It was found that purchase of tablets from M/s Mangla Pharma through a bill were consumed and stock was shown to be 'Nil'. The petitioners were given a notice to show as to from whom tablets Oxyrfen Butazone were purchased. Petitioners could not give satisfactory reply thus complaint was filed against them. While considering the application, it was found by the court below that prima facie proof and evidence does not exist for taking cognizance against the manufacturer and the supplier.
I find no illegality in the impugned order for not taking cognizance against the supplier and manufacturer as it can be taken if prima facie proof or evidence exist. At this stage, I am
3
not inclined to interfere in the order. Accordingly, misc. petition so as the stay application are dismissed. Dismissal of the misc petition would however not preclude for taking cognizance against the supplier or manufacturer, if evidence comes at any stage.
(MN BHANDARI), J.
bnsharma
All corrections made in the judgment/ order have been incorporated in the judgment/ order being emailed.
(BN Sharma) PS-cum-JW
Abhimanyu & ors
State of Rajasthan
MN BHANDARI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
