Karnataka High Court
Anuragh Arora S/O Gauri Shankar Arora vs State Of Karnataka Anr on 9 January, 2013
Author: Mohan Shantanagoudar
Bench: Mohan Shantanagoudar
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAN SHANTANAGOUDAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.15377/2011
BETWEEN :
Anuragh Arora
S/o.Gauri Shankar Arora
Aged 32 years
Manufacturing Chemist
G.S.Phamaceticals Private Limited
1.5 Kms, Manglour
Haridwar
Roorkhi/D/
State of Uttarkhand .. PETITIONER
(By Sri A.M.Nagral, Adv.,)
AND :
1. State of Karnataka
Rep. by State Public Prosecutor
High Court Premises
High Court Building
Gulbarga
2. Assistant Drugs Controller
Bijapur Circle
Bijapur .. RESPONDENTS
-2-
This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by
the advocate for the petitioner praying that this Hon'ble
Court may be pleased to call for the records in
CC.No.436/2008 in the private complaint No.101/2008 on
the file of the JMFC., Bijapur and set aside/quash the entire
proceedings initiated against the petitioner herein and also
act of taking cognizance and issuance of summons in
CC.No.436/2008 on the file of the JMFC, Bijapur dated
19.2.2008.
This petition coming on for admission, this day the
Court made the following:-
ORDER
This petition is filed praying for quashing the proceedings in CC.No.436/2008 pending on the file of JMFC., Bijapur. The proceedings in CC.No.436/2008 were initiated based on the private complaint lodged in PC.No.101/2008.
2. It is alleged that the petitioner being the manufacturing chemist and Director of M/s.G.S.Pharmaceuticals Private Limited had manufactured sub-standard quality drug "Gayvit Capsul" (vitamin capsul). On 3.12.2004, the second respondent visited some of the Medical Stores in Bijapur and collected samples of Gayvit Capsul of -3- Batch No.CS2509, Manufacturing Date: September, 2004, Expiry Date: August 2006 for the purpose of testing the same in Laboratory. On 27.7.2005 the second respondent received the test report declaring said capsuls as of substandard quality. The Assistant Drugs Controller sent a letter to M/s.G.S.Pharmaceuticals Private Limited along with the report on 3.8.2005 which was received by the petitioner on 9.8.2005. On 12.8.2005 and on 17.8.2005 the petitioner replied to the said letter stating that he intends to question the report under Section 25(4) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ('Act' for short). In spite of the same, the petitioner alleges that the sample seized by respondent No.2 was not sent to the petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner could not question the same before the Central Drugs Laboratory.
-4-
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that had the sample of the drug been provided to the petitioner, he would have questioned the same before the Central Laboratory under the provisions of Section 25(4) of the Act. Because of non-providing of the sample to the petitioner by respondent No.2, the petitioner was prevented from questioning the report made by the State Drugs Laboratory. Curiously respondents kept quiet from 2005 to 2008 and lodged the complaint only on 19.2.2008. The said facts are not controverted.
4. From the aforementioned facts, it is clear that the respondents have failed to provide sample seized by them to the petitioner so as to enable the petitioner to question the report of the State Drugs Laboratory before the Central Drugs Laboratory. The manufacturer of the drug should be furnished with not only the report of the State Drugs Labotrary, but also the sample seized, to get it once again verified from -5- the Central Drugs Laboratory, if the manufacturer so chooses. Since respondent No.2 has failed to furnish the sample to the petitioner, the petitioner could not approach the Central Drugs Laboratory. In view of the same, the petitioner cannot be blamed. The criminal proceedings shall be launched only if the Central Drugs Laboratory gives its report adverse to the interest of the petitioner. The petitioner was debarred from approaching the Central Drugs Laboratory because of the inaction on the part of respondent No.2 as aforementioned. Therefore, the prosecution launched against the petitioner are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the proceedings in CC.No.436/2008 pending on the file of JMFC., Bijapur stand quashed.
Petition is allowed accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE *ck/-