Drugs and Cosmetics Act case quashed on petitioners failure to avail statutory right for secondary analysis by central lab within 28 days; dismissal of petition for quashing holds matter triable.
Petition for quashing of the case under Section 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed.
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.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4747 OF 2009
Date: 03.12.2011
Between:
M/s.Shree Deepa Drugs & Pharmaceuticals (P) Limited, Aushapur Village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and another
…..Petitioners
And
The State of A.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.
…..Respondent
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4747 OF 2009
ORDER:
Heard Sri C.Padmanabha Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.
2. Petitioners herein are accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.773 of 2002 on the file of the Court of V Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad (trial court) and they filed this petition for quashing the said case. The offences alleged against them in the aforesaid case are those punishable under Section 32 read with Sections 18(c), 17(c), 18-B and Section 18(a) (vi) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (for short Act).
3. In the present case the drug in question is Chloroquine Phosphate Suspension IP. Accused No.1 is a private limited company and accused No.2 is its Director and they are manufacturers of the said drug. The sample of the drug was lifted on 27.2.2001 from the concerned medical dispensing store at Employees State Insurance Hospital, Sanathnagar, Hyderabad in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the Act and it was sent for analysis and report.
4. The Government Analyst gave her report dated 23.4.2001 to the effect that the sample is of standard quality as defined in the Act but the volume of the liquid i.e.
Chloroquine Phosphate Suspension IP found in the bottles is less than the labelled claim. It is seen that on the label of the above drug in question, the quantity of the drug is mentioned 50 ml. but the volume was found to be 34 ml. and that is the gist of the offence.
5. The complaint averments would also show that the Drug Inspector has furnished the Analyst report also to accused No.2 i.e. the Director of accused No.1 company on 8.8.2001. The grievance of the accused Nos.1 and 2 is that they were not supplied with the second sample and they were also not given an opportunity to send the second sample in question or the spare sample to the Central Drug Laboratory for another analysis as contemplated under Section 23 of the Act. It is stated in the petition that accused Nos.1 and 2 also addressed a letter to the Drug Inspector and this is specifically mentioned in para 6 in the petition but the date of the letter is not mentioned and a copy of it also not filed. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor says that he has verified the record received from the Drug Inspector and his instructions are that no such letter has been received by him.
6. It may be noted that under Section 25 (3) of the Act a person desirous of getting the other sample analysed by the Central Drug Laboratory should notify the same to the Drug Inspector within 28 days from the date of receipt of the notice of the report by him or he can also within that period give his request before the Court in which the proceedings are pending against him. From the record it is clear that the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 did not file any
documentary proof to show that they have exercised this right either before the Drug Inspector or before the trial court within 28 days from 8.8.2001 on which they received the analyst report and hence they cannot complain violation of this provision. This apart, the plea of the petitioners that they were not supplied with the other spare sample is also denied by the Drug Inspector. It is also represented that the matter has commenced before the trial court and charges have been framed following the procedure prescribed for the trial of warrant cases instituted otherwise than on police reports.
7. In the above circumstances, I am of the opinion that this is not a fit case for interference under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and accordingly the plea of the petitioners to quash the above case is rejected. It goes without saying that it shall be open for the petitioners to raise all their pleas before the trial court.
8. This petition is accordingly dismissed.
___________________________ JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR
3rd December, 2011 Tjmr
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4747 OF 2009
DATE: 03.12.2011
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the quashing of the criminal case should be granted under Section 482 Cr.P.C. given the failure of accused to file representation for secondary analysis within the statutory time limit.
4 provisions across 2 enactments
M/s. Shree Deepa Drugs & Pharmaceuticals (P) Limited
The State of A.P.
N. Ravi Shankar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
