Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Dr. Raj Laboratories And Anr. vs The State Of A.P. And Anr. on 15 February, 2006
Equivalent citations: 2006(1)ALD(CRI)987, 2006CRILJ2365
ORDER A. Gopal Reddy, J.
1. First petitioner is the firm engaged in manufacturing tablets by name 'Furazolidone, 100 mg. tablets used as anti-diarrhocal, and the second petitioner is its proprietor. They filed this petition under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code to quash the proceedings initiated against them in C. C. No. 342 of 2001 pending on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Amalapuram for the offences punishable under Sections 18(a)(i) r/w Section 16(1) and Section 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (for short 'the Act').
2. The facts of the case are that on 4-5-2000 the Drugs Inspector, Amalapuram seized the Furazolidone tablets 100 mg. Batch No. FUR 2001; manufactured dated 1/2000, expiry date 12/2002 manufactured by the petitioners from the area hospital, Amalapuram and sent the samples to the Government Analyst, Vijayawada, who in his report, dated 19-8-2000 declared the said sample as "not of standard quality" as it does not meet the I. P. Specifications in respect of disintegration test. After completion of necessary formalities and after obtaining the permission from the Inspector General, Drugs & Copyright, Drugs Control Administration, Hyderabad on 3-10-2001, the impugned proceedings were initiated against the petitioners.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the Drugs Inspector, Kurnool seized the very same tablets of same batch at Kurnool manufactured by the petitioners and suspecting them to be below standard, sent the same to 'the Government analyst, Hyderabad. The said analyst in his report, dated 14-7-2000 opined that the samples sent to him are of standard quality as defined in the Act, Placing a copy of the said report, the learned Counsel contends that in view of the divergent opinions of the public analysts at Vijayawada and Hyderabad, dated 19-8-2000 and 14-7-2000 respectively, with regard to the very same batch tablets, the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed.
4. In a similar case, the Allahabad High Court in Anand Swarup v. State 1965 All L.J. 120 held that where before the Court there were two reports and the accused was not prepared to accept second report, the Magistrate had jurisdiction to send the sample to the Central Drugs Laboratory for test and analysis. Hence, the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed in view of the conflicting reports, cannot be countenanced.
5. The other contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that within 28 days after receipt of report from the analyst, Vijayawada, the petitioners were not informed in writing either by the Inspector or by the Court before which the proceedings are pending, for adducing evidence in contravention of the said report as required under Sub-section (3) of Section 25 of the Act, and therefore, the impugned proceedings have to be quashed. I am afraid, the said contention cannot be sustained for the reason that Sub-section (3) of Section 25 of the Act does not envisage for giving information to the petitioners in writing within 28 days from the date of receipt of report from the analyst for adducing rebuttal evidence thereto. In fact, Sub-section (3) of Section 25 of the Act envisages that on receipt of the copy of the report of analyst, the person whose name, address and other particulars have been disclosed under Section 18-A of the Act, within twenty eight days on receipt of copy of the report of analyst, has to notify in writing to the Inspector or to the Court before which the proceedings in respect of the sample are pending, that he intends to adduce the evidence in contravention of the report. As seen from the records, after obtaining the information of the source of supply of the tablets, the Drugs Inspector, Amalapuram furnished a third portion of the sample of the subject drug along with a copy of analyst report to the petitioners and requested to furnish manufacturing and distribution records under Section 18{B) of the Act on 10-4-2001. As there was no response from the side of the petitioners, reminders dated 13-6-2001 and 24-9-2001 were also issued. But, the petitioners failed to notify their intention in writing within 28 days from the date of receipt of copy of the report of analyst for adducing the evidence in contravention of the report.
For the forgoing reasons, I see no merits in the Criminal Petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.