Bangalore District Court
The Drugs Inspector vs M/S. Venus Remedies Ltd on 28 April, 2018
1 CC.No.949-07
BEFORE THE SPECIAL COURT FOR ECONOMIC
OFFENCES AT: BANGALORE.
Dated this the 28th day April 2018.
: Present:
Sri. SHANTHANNA ALVA M., B.A., LL.B.,
Presiding Officer, Special Court
for Economic Offences, Bangalore.
CC.No.949-2007
Complainant: The Drugs Inspector, Bangalore Circle-IV,
Bangalore.
(By Sr. A.P.P.)
.Vs.
Accused: 1. M/s. Venus Remedies Ltd.,
No.51-52, Indl. Area, Phase-1,
Panchakula, Haryana-134113.
Rep. by A.2-Pawan Kumar Chaudhary.
2. Pawan Kumar Chaudhary, Managing
Director of A.1, R/at.No.1054, Sec-4,
Panchakula, Haryana.
3. H.R. Goel, Manufacturing Chemist of A.1,
M/s. Venus Remedies Ltd., No.51-52,
Indl. Area, Phase-1, Panchakula,
Haryana-134113.
4. Prahlad Kumar, Analytical Chemist of A.1,
M/s. Venus Remedies Ltd., No.51-52,
Indl. Area, Phase-1, Panchakula,
Haryana-134113.
(The case against A.3 & 4 is split up & a separate case in CC. No
286/2011 was registered vide order dated: 06.08.2011)
2 CC.No.949-07
(By A.1 & 2 Sri. G. Desu Reddy, Adv.)
JUDGMENT
1. The complainant/the State at the instance of Drugs Inspector, Bangalore Circle-IV, Bangalore, filed the complaint u/s. 200 of Cr.P.C. alleging that the accused No.1 to 4 have committed the offence punishable u/s. 27
(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. (Herein after referred as "the Act")
2. The complainant's case is that the accused No.1 i.e., M/s. Venus Remedies Ltd is a registered company, Haryana, engaged in manufacturing and sale of drugs. Accused No. 2 is the Managing Director of accused No.1 and he was responsible for the day to day business of company. Accused No.3 is the Manufacturing Chemist and he was responsible for the manufacturing of drugs. Accused No.4 is the Analytical Chemist and he was responsible for the testing of the drugs. On 29.04.2004, C.w.2-Sri.Ajayraj D. Shah, the then Drug Inspector of Circle-IV, Bangalore has drawn the legal sample of 4x 3 CC.No.949-07 50x2ml of Diazeparn Injection I.P., B.No.AJ17011, M/D:10/2003, E/D:09/2005, manufactured by accused No.1 under From No.17 along with other drugs for test and analysis from the premises of Government Medical Stores, Magadi Road, Bangalore. The legal sample was sent to the Government Analyst, Drugs Testing Laboratory, and Bangalore and on 30.07.2004, the report was received to the effect that the sent legal sample is "Not of Standard Quality" with respect to description. The Additional Director of Government Medical Store informed that the drugs were purchased from accused No.1. Then on 18.08.2004 C.w.2 sent a portion of sealed sample of the drug to accused No.1 and it contested and intended to adduce evidence to controvert the test report of the Government Analyst, Bangalore. Then on 19.03.2015 C.w.2 filed a petition and by virtue of the order, the portion of sample was sent to the Central drugs Laboratory, Kolkotta. After the test, it was reported that sent the legal sample is "Not of Standard Quality". 4 CC.No.949-07
Thereafter, the complainant collected necessary documents and then obtained the sanction, and filed the complaint.
3. On filing of the complaint, cognizance was taken and case was registered against accused persons for the offence punishable u/s. 27 (d) of the Act. In response to the summons, accused No.2 who is also representing accused No.1 appeared through his respective counsel and enlarged on bail. Copies of the complaint and other documents were furnished to him.
4. During the trial, the presence of accused No.3 and 4 could not be secured, hence, the case against them was ordered to be split up and separate case in CC. No.286/2011 was registered. The case was proceeded against accused No.1 and 2.
5. Then evidence before charge was recorded as required u/s. 244 of Cr.P.C. and then on hearing the learned Sr. APP & accused, charge was framed against accused No.2 who is also representing accused No.1 for 5 CC.No.949-07 the offence punishable u/s. 27(d) of the Drugs & Cosmetic Act, 1940 and read over to him. Accused No.2 who is also representing accused No.1 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. To prove the case, the complainant examined 3 witnesses as P.w.1 to 3 and got marked the documents Ex.p.1 to 36 and Ex.C.1 to 3 and materials objects are not marked.
7. After closure of complainant's side evidence, the statement of accused No.2 who is also representing accused No.1 were recorded as provided u/s.313 of Cr.P.C. Accused No.2 who is also representing accused No.1 denied incriminatory evidence framed against them. Accused No.2 who is also representing accused No.1 not chosen to lead either oral or documentary evidence.
8. Heard the arguments of the learned counsels. The points that arise for my consideration are :
Point No.1: Whether the complaint is barred by limitation?6 CC.No.949-07
Point No.2: Whether the Drug Inspector who investigated the matter had no jurisdiction and the complaint is bad for not having valid sanction?
Point No.3: Whether the complainant has proved that the sampled drug i.e., Diazeparn Injection I.P., B.No.AJ17011, M/D:10/2003,E/D:09/2005 manufactured by accused No.1 company is "Not of Standard Quality" drug and by manufacture and sale of that drug, the accused No.1 committed the offence punishable u/s.18(a)(i) of the Act which is punishable u/s.27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.?
Point No.4: Whether the complainant has proved that the accused No.2 was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of accused No.1 Company, hence, he was held guilty for the offence committed by accused No.1 Company ?
Point No.5: What order?
9. My findings on the above said points are as under:
Point No.1: In the Negative, Point No.2: In the Negative, Point No.3: In the Affirmative, Point No.4: In the Negative, Point No.5: As per the Final orders for the following: 7 CC.No.949-07
REASONS
10. Point No.1: The accused taken up the contention that the complaint is barred by limitation. It is argued that according to the complainant, the report declaring the drugs as not of standard quality was received on 30.07.2004 from the Government Analyst, Drugs Testing Laboratory, Bangalore. The alleged offence was punishable with imprisonment up to two years and with fine. By referring to Sec. 468 of Cr.P.C., it is argued that the limitation to file the complaint for the offence punishable up to 2 years is 3 years. The complaint was filed on 31.10.2007 i.e., after expiry of three years, hence complaint is barred by limitation. The learned counsel argued that the cause of action arises from the date of knowledge and in support of this line of argument, relied upon the rulings rendered by our Hon'ble High Court in the case of M/s. Modern Laboratories and others Vs. State through Drugs Inspector, reported in 2015(2) Drugs Cases (DC) 267, wherein, it is held that "the 8 CC.No.949-07 period of limitation would commence on the first day on which such offence comes to the knowledge of such person or to any Police Officer, whichever is earlier." Andhra Pradesh High Court, in the case of M/s.Invinex Laboratories Limited, Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Drugs Inspector,, in Crl. P. No.2021/2009, held that "taking of cognizance beyond the limitation period is not sustainable." In the case of Dr. Krishna Gopal Agarwal Vs. The State of Karnataka, reported in 2010 (1) Drugs Cases (DC) 24, wherein, it is held that "in a case where certificate of test/ analysis report of the sample drug submitted in the year 1996, whereas complaint had filed in 2005, the complaint much beyond the period of limitation." In the case of M/s. Tidal Laboratories Private Limited, Vs. State by Assistant Drugs Controller, in Crl.P.No. 1393/2014, our Hon'ble High Court, rendered similar finding.
11. There would not be any dispute over the fact that the limitation provided for the offence punishable u/s. 27 9 CC.No.949-07
(d) of the Act was three years. In the rulings referred above, it has been reiterated that the cause of action for filing the complaint arises from the date on which the commission of offence comes to the knowledge of the complainant. Here, the complainant came to know that the drug in question was "Not of Standard Quality" on 30.07.2004. But the accused No.1 challenged the report and that compelled the Drug Inspector to send the legal sample for the test at Central Drugs Laboratory (CDL) by virtue of Sec.25 (4) of the Act. The report from the C D L, Kolkotta was received on 12.05.2005. The report of the Government Analyst lost its evidentiary value in view of the challenged and expressing of intention to adduce evidence in contravention of the report of the Government Analyst. In view of the challenge, the test report dated: 30.07.2004 is not available for the complaint to substantiate that the drug is "Not of Standard Quality" and he has to wait till the receipt of the report from the CDL. On receipt of the report from the 10 CC.No.949-07 CDL, the cause of action arises to file the complaint. In the rulings relied by the learned counsel of the accused No.1 and 2, it is the complaint was filed based on the report of the Government Analysts, but the complainant on hand was filed based on the test report of the CDL. Thus, the ratio laid down in the above cited ruling cannot be made applicable to the case on hand. Consequently, the contention of the accused that the complaint is barred by limitation is not sustainable. Accordingly, this point is answered in negative.
12. Point No.2 Accused No.1 and 2 taken up the contention that the Drug Inspector who investigated the matter had no jurisdiction to seize the alleged spurious drugs investigate the matter and file the complaint. In the complaint there is reference about the notifications under which the appointment of complainant and C.w.2 were notified. Section. 21 of the Act and in various rulings rendered by our Hon'ble High Court and other High Courts makes it clear that only the person appointed as a 11 CC.No.949-07 Drug Inspector through notification published in the Official Gazette is empowered to investigate the matter relating the contravention of the provisions of the Act. Here, the accused not up the specific contention that the Drug Inspectors who investigation the matter are the Drug Inspectors appointed through a notification. Mere, suggestion that the Drug Inspectors had no jurisdiction is not sufficient. Even otherwise, the copies of the notifications produced by the complainant disclose that he and other Drug Inspectors who investigated the matter were the Drug Inspectors legally appointed and the Drug Inspector who seized the drug had the jurisdiction.
13. The second contention taken is that there is no proper sanction to prosecute the accused persons. Ex.p.24 is the sanction dated: 16.10.2007 given the Drug Controller. The sanction lacks the required ingredients to constitute the valid sanction. It is not stated what are the evidence pursued to confirm the existence of prima facie 12 CC.No.949-07 evidence. Thus, it cannot be considered as valid sanction. The question here is whether the sanction is mandatory to launch the criminal case for contraventions of the provision envisaged under Chapter-IV of the Act.
14. The learned counsel of the accused relied upon the number of rulings and argued that the sanction is mandatory. The Act contains the Chapter-IV which deals with the manufacturer, sell and distribution of drugs and cosmetics. Chapter-IV-A deals with provision relating to deals with taking cognizance of offences relating of Ayurvedic, Siddha and Unani drugs. Sec.32 of Chapter- IV deals with taking of cognizance and it no where says that there must be sanction from the higher authority to initiate the prosecution under that Chapter. Rule.51 (5) of the Act says that the inspector subject to the instructions of the controlling authority shall initiate any complaint in writing which may be made to him. The reading of the section and rule referred above, it can be very well inferred that what required is only the instruction from the 13 CC.No.949-07 controlling authority and not the sanction. As argued by the learned in charge Sr. A.P.P., only Section. 33(m) of the Act mandates the sanction to file the case for contravention of the provisions under Chapter-IVA of the Act. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Drugs Inspector & Another Vs, Fizekem Laboratories (P) Ltd., and other, reported in (2008) 4 SCC 784, wherein it is held that "sanction is required only if proceedings are initiated under Chapter-IV-A of the Act. Thus, the contention of the learned counsel of the accused persons that the complaint is not maintainable in view of not carrying the investigation by the competent officer and not of having valid sanction is not sustainable. Accordingly, this point is answered in negative.
15. Point No.3: It is admitted fact that accused No.1 manufactured Diazeparn Injection I.P., B.No.AJ17011, M/D:10/2003, E/D: 09/2005 and supplied to the Health Department of Karnataka Government. The complainant's case is that jurisdictional Drug Inspector 14 CC.No.949-07 drawn the legal sample of that drug on 29.04.2004 and sent them for test for Government Analyst and report received to the effect that the drug is declared as "Not of Standard Quality" with respect to description. The accused No.1 challenged the report, hence the legal sample was sent to the CDL, and there also similar report was received.
16. C.w.1-Mr.Shankar Naik examined as P.w.1 deposed in line with complaint averments. The letter of report, the letter submitted to the Drugs Controller of Haryana, the letter submitted to accused No.1 to give particulars are marked as Ex.p.1 to 4. The statement given by the General Manager of a. No.1, Form No.28, Form No.26, product permission letter, invoice, Memorandum of Association and Articles of Association and copy of letter given by the Drugs Controller are marked as Ex.p.5 to 14. The report of the investigation conducted at accused No.1. The reports submitted to the Drugs Controller are marked as Ex.p.15 and 16. The 15 CC.No.949-07 letter given by the General Manager of accused No.1 and the documents furnished by the accused No.1 are marked as Ex.p.17 to 22. The letter where under permission was sought and the sanction are marked as Ex.p.23 and 24.
17. C.w.2-Mr.Ajay Raj D. Shah examined as P.w.2 deposed about the drawing of legal sample of the drug and sending them to the test. The Form No.17, the memorandum, the test report, copy of the notice, reply, copies of the challan and distribution particulars are marked a Ex.p.27 to 33. The copy of the test report and acknowledgement are marked as Ex.p.34 and 35. The copy of the Crl.Misc.P.No.08/2005, notice issued to accused No.1 and the report of Central Drugs Laboratory are marked as Ex.C.1 to 3. C.w.4-Mr.R.Chandrashkar, Retired Chief Pharmacist, Bangalore examined as P.w.3 deposed that C.w.2 drawn the legal samples of the drugs in Form No.17 as per Ex.p.27.
16 CC.No.949-07
18. The above referred oral and documentary evidence did show that C.w.2 had taken the legal samples of the drugs and it was sent to the Government Analyst and report was received to the effect that the sample is "Not of Standard Quality" with respect to description. Then in view of the dispute of the corroboration of the report, another legal sample was sent to the CDL and from there report was received to the effect that it is "Not of Standard Quality" in respect of description.
19. The learned counsel of the accused No.1 and 2 argued that the protocol particulars are not produced and the Director who issued the Form No.2 is not examined, hence the report in Form No.2 cannot be looked into. In support of this line of argument, the learned counsel relied upon the ruling rendered by the Hon'ble Mumbai High Court, in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. R.A. Chandawarkar and others, reported in 1999 Drugs Cases 94. In the said ruling by relying on the ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of T. 17 CC.No.949-07 A. Krishnaswamhy Vs. State of Madras, reported in AIR 1966 SC 1022, wherein it is held that "in view of subsequent amendment to Rule.46 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 with effect from 21.07.1962, the analyst report is not required to state the protocols only to given the results of the analysis and it was held that the said report was admissible in evidence." Our Hon'ble High Court in the case of State Of Karnataka Vs Vikram Chemical Laboratories reported in 1975 Cr.L.J 332 held that "When the sample tested is a pharmacopial drug, reference to tests and method prescribed is sufficient compliance of Rule 46 and the Govt. Analyst report is conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein." Thus the contention of the accused that for the reason of non examination of author of Form No. 2 and for non production of protocol test particulars, the report cannot be over looked. As far as the Judgment relied by the learned counsel in the case of Vishal Pharmaceuticals and another Vs. State of M.P. 18 CC.No.949-07 reported in 1999 (2) MPLJ 378, is concerned, in the said ruling Rule-46 is not considered. Added to this in the presence of the ruling of Hon'ble Apex Court and our Hon'ble High Court, the ratio laid down in the above cited ruling cannot be relied.
20. The learned counsel argued that there is no evidence to the effect that the drug in question was kept in proper storage conditions. It is argued that the legal samples was in the laboratory for quite long period and the legal sample sent to the Central Drugs Laboratory was with the Drug Inspector for the period of more than one year and there is absolutely no evidence to the effect that during that period the drug was kept in proper storage condition. It is argued that the burden of proving that the drug was kept in proper storage condition is upon the complaint. In support of this line of argument, the learned counsel relied upon the ruling rendered by the Hon'ble Patna High Court, in the case of Sulochna Devi vs. State of Bihar, in Crl. Misc. No. 34874/2003 19 CC.No.949-07 and the ruling rendered in the case of State of Goa Vs. M/s. Caryl Pharma and others, reported in legalcrystal.com/1176487.
21. The learned Incharge Sr. A.P.P argued that the drug in question was to stored in a cool place and it is protected from light. The Senior Pharmacist in his evidence deposed that the drug was kept in cool place and it was protected from light. There is absolutely no evidence to the effect that the drug was not stored in a proper storage condition. It is argued that the legal samples of other drugs drawn on that day passed the test. If the storage conditions were not proper, then they would have also failed in the test. It is argued that the test at the Central Drugs Laboratory was conducted before expiry of shelf period, hence, the contention that there is delay, is not acceptable.
22. Once the accused opts to send the sample to the C D L and obtains the report, then conclusiveness attaches to the report of the C D L by virtue of Sec. 25(4) of the 20 CC.No.949-07 Act. The only option available for the accused is to show that the drug was not stored in proper storage condition and that resulted in loss of potentiality. The accused has to show that the deficiency in the drug was not on account of defect at the stage of manufacture, but that was become not keeping the drug in proper storage condition. Except denials and suggestions, there is no evidence to the effect that the sample drugs were stored in improper storage condition. It is argued that in the April, there will be high temperature. The drug is supposed to withstand the temperature variations. The drug was tested in 55' C. The cool and dry place means room temperature or normal storage conditions, which means storage in a dry, clean, well ventilated area at room temperature between 15C' to 25C' (59"-77p) or up to 30C' depending on the climate conditions. There is no evidence to the effect that the temperature was much higher than 30C' during period. It is argued that the Drug Inspector not verified the storage condition at the time of 21 CC.No.949-07 taking sample, however, the provision of Act and Rules not mandates such requirement. There is no evidence to the effect that the drugs were stored in improper condition and that resulted in deterioration of quality of the drugs.
23. Accused No.1 in the reply dated: 18.04.2007 marked as Ex.p.17 taken up the contention that I.P says for the raw material that, "White or almost white to pale yellow, crystalline powder, odorless or almost odorless. Therefore, for the reason of declaration not of standard quality is unjustified." It is contended that this should not be construed as a matter of discoloration since the raw material itself is permitted in I.P as white to pale yellow colour. The accused No.1 except taking up the contention not produced any scientific evidence to substantiate this contention. Description of Diazepam Injection is stated in IP as "A clear, colourless or almost colourless solution." Thus the contention raised by the accused No.1 in this regard is not sustainable. 22 CC.No.949-07
24. Thus, on appreciation of evidence on record, I hold that the complainant succeeded in proving that the drug failed in description as it found light yellow coloured liquid instead of clear colourless solution. This amounts to commission of offence punishable u/s.27 (d) of the Act by the accused No.1. Accordingly, this point is answered in affirmative.
25. Point No.4 : In the discussion made supra, it is held that the complainant succeeded in proving that the accused No.1 committed the offence punishable u/s.27(d) of the Act. Accused No.2 is the director of accused No.1 Company and he can be held guilty for the offence committed by a. No.1 only if it is shown that he was in charge of and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company. The learned counsel of the accused argued that there are neither averments nor evidence in this regard. In support of this argument relied upon the rulings rendered in the case of Ashok Kumar Tyagi Vs. State of H.P., reported in 2015 23 CC.No.949-07 (1) Drugs Cases (DC) 185. Madhya Pradesh High Court, in the case of Venkateshwaran Narayanan Ayyar Vs. State of M.P., reported in 2006 Drugs Cases (DC) 532. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Pratap Chand and others, reported in 1981 Drugs Cases, (DC) 1 SC. Allahabad High Court, in the case of R.K. Khandelwal and another, Vs. State, reported in 1983 Drugs Cases. Madhya Pradesh High Court, in the case of Kishan Gopal Vassal and others, Vs. State of M.P., reported in 2008 Drugs Cases (DC) 584. In these rulings, it has been held that there must be averment to the effect that the directors or other officers who arrayed as accused was in charge and was responsible for the conduct of the business of the firm at the time of the commission of the offence.
26. In the complaint at Para No.5, it is stated that accused No.2 is the Managing Director of accused No.1 and in that capacity; he is responsible for the day to day 24 CC.No.949-07 business of the company. Thus, responsible for the offence committed by the accused No.1. The fact that the accused No.2 is the Managing Director of accused No.1 company at the relevant period is not in dispute. Ex.p.4 is the statement given by Mr. D.P. Arya, Deputy General Manager of accused No.1 and wherein, it is stated that accused No.2 is the Managing Director of accused No.1 Company. Generally, the Managing Director of company is having the charge over the business of the company. But that itself is not sufficient to rope the accused No.2 for the offence committed by the accused No.1.
27. The proviso attached to Sec. 34 of the Act says that nothing in this section shall render any such person liable to any punishment if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he exercised all the due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence. In the ruling reported in 2017(2) Drug Case (DC) 49 referred above, it is held 25 CC.No.949-07 that "if the director, manager, secretary or any other officer of the company is shown to be an accused in the complaint, then it is obligatory on the part of the complainant to show that the offence is committed with the consent or connivance. Merely because that a person is director is not self sufficient to establish that the offence is committed with his consent or connivance in the absence of basic pleading in that behalf." In this case, there are no such averments.
28. Added to this, the evidence on record discloses that all the precautions were taken while manufacturing the drugs. The Manufacturing Chemist and Analytical Chemist were in charge of manufacturing process and testing of the drugs. This shows that the accused No.2 exercised due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence. There is absolutely no evidence to the effect that the offence was committed with the knowledge of accused No.2. Thus, the court is of the considered view that the accused No.2 is not to be held 26 CC.No.949-07 guilty for the offence committed by accused No.1. Accordingly, this point is answered in negative.
29. Point No.5: In view of my findings on Points No.1 to 4, I proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER By exercising the power conferred u/s. 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. the accused No.2 is acquitted from the offence punishable u/s.27(d) of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940.
By exercising the power conferred u/s. 248 (2) of Cr.P.C. the accused No.1 is convicted from the offence punishable u/s.27(d) of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940.
Bail bond of the accused No.2 stands cancelled. To hear regarding sentence on accused No.1. (Dictated to the Stenographer, directly on computer, typed by her corrected and then th pronounced by me, in open court on this the 28 day of April - 2018.) PRESIDING OFFICER.27 CC.No.949-07
ORDER ON SENTENCE
30. Heard the accused No.1, his counsel and I/c Sr. A.P.P.,
31. The learned counsel of the accused No.1 submitted that the State Drug Controller cum licensing authority, Haryana has already taken a severe positive action against the company. Thus, prayed to impose minimum possible fine. The learned Incharge Sr.P.P., argued to award maximum fine.
32. The accused No.1 is a company and only fine can be imposed for the offence punishable u/s.27 (d) of the Act the relevant period was punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year, but may extend to two years and with fine. Considering over all aspects, I hold that Rs. 5,000/- has to be imposed as fine on accused No.1 company. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: 28 CC.No.949-07
ORDER The accused No.1 is sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) for the offence punishable u/s.27 (d) of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, directly on computer, typed by her corrected and then th pronounced by me, in open court on this the 28 day of April - 2018.) PRESIDING OFFICER.
ANNEXURE:
ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT: WITNESSES:
P.w.1 - Shankar Naik, P.w.2 - Ajay Raj D. Shah, P.w.3 - R. Chandrasekhar.
DOCUMENTS:
Ex.P.1 - Letter dated:13.03.2011, Ex.P.2 - O/c of Letter dated:13.03.2007, Ex.P.3 - Letter dated:14.03.2007, Ex.P.3 - (a) Sig. of P.w.1, Ex.P.3 - (b) Sig. of D.R.Arya, Ex.P.4 - Statement of D.R.Arya, Ex.P.4 - (a) Sig. of D.R.Arya, Ex.P.4 - (b) Sig. of P.w.1, Ex.P.4 - (c) Sig. of ADC, 29 CC.No.949-07 Ex.P.5 - A/c of Form No.28, Ex.P.6 - A/c of Form No.26, Ex.P.7 - A/c of Product Permission Letter, Ex.P.8 - A/c of Additional Item Approval, Ex.P.9 - A/c of Invoice, Ex.P.10 - A/c of Invoice, Ex.P.11 - Letter, dated:25.01.1999, Ex.P.12 - A/c of Rate Contract, Ex.P.13 - Memorandum of Association and Articles of Association, Ex.P.14 - Copy of Letter, Ex.P.15 - Spot Investigation, Ex.P.15 - (a) Sig. of ADC Circle - 4, Ex.P.15 - (b) Sig. of Sarika Mallik, Ex.P.15 - (c) Sig. of D.I., of Haryana, Ex.P.15 - (d) Sig. of D.P.Arya, Ex.P.16 - Letter, Ex.P.16 - (a) Sig. of P.w.1, Ex.P.17 - Letter dated:18.04.2007, Ex.P.17 - (a) Sig. of D.R.Arya, Ex.P.18 to 22 Letters, Ex.P.23 - Permission Letter, Ex.P.23 - (a) Sig. of P.w.1, Ex.P.24 - Sanction Order, Ex.P.24 - (a) Sig. of Drugs Controller, Ex.P.25 - Complaint, Ex.P.25 - (a) Sig. of P.w.1, Ex.P.26 - Form No.13, Ex.P.27 - Form No.17, Ex.P.27 - (a) Sig. of P.w.2, Ex.P.27 - (b) Sig. of C.w.4, Ex.P.28 - Carbon copy of Memorandum, Ex.P.28 - (a) Sig. of P.w.2, Ex.P.28 - (b) Sig. of Superintendent, Ex.P.29 - Notice, Ex.P.29 - (a) Sig. of P.w.2, Ex.P.29 - (b) Sig. of C.w.5, Ex.P.30 - Letter dated: 13.08.2004, 30 CC.No.949-07 Ex.P.30 - (a) Sig. of P.w.2, Ex.P.31 - A/c of Challan, Ex.P.32 - A/c of Challan, Ex.P.33 - A/c of Distribution Particulars, Ex.P.34 - Carbon copy of Letter, Ex.P.34 - (a) Sig. of P.w.2, Ex.P.35 - Postal Acknowledgement, Ex.P.35 - (a) Sig. of Rambabu/ADC, Ex.P.36 - Letter, Ex.P.36 - (a)Relevant entry.
ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT: DOCUMENTS:
Ex.C.1 - Petition, Ex.C.2 - Notice, Ex.C.3 - Form No.2.
MATERIAL OBJECTS: Nil.
ON BEHALF OF THE ACCUSED: Witnesses & Documents: Nil.
(SHANTHANNA ALVA M.) PRESIDING OFFICER, SPL.COURT FOR ECONOMIC OFFENCES, BANGALORE.31 CC.No.949-07
28.04.2018 Complt., -Sr.A.P.P., A.1 Co., rep. by A.2, A.2 - G.D.R., A.3 & 4 - Split up, For Judgment.
(Judgment pronounced in open court vide separate order) ORDER By exercising the power conferred u/s. 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. the accused No.2 is acquitted from the offence punishable u/s.27(d) of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940.
By exercising the power conferred u/s. 248 (2) of Cr.P.C. the accused No.1 is convicted from the offence punishable u/s.27(d) of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940.
Bail bond of the accused No.2 stands cancelled.
To hear regarding sentence on accused No.1.
PRESIDING OFFICER.
32 CC.No.949-0728.04.2018 (Orders regarding sentence pronounced in open court vide separate order) ORDER The accused No.1 is sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) for the offence punishable u/s.27 (d) of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940.
PRESIDING OFFICER.