Delhi District Court
State vs M. Shankar Sharma on 29 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. NAVJEET BUDHIRAJA
ASJ-02, SOUTH, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
CNR NO. DLST-01-0051682019
SESSION CASE NO. 457/2019
IN THE MATTER OF :
State
Versus
M Shankar Sharma
S/o Sh. M G Sharma
R/o E-13, 3rd Floor
Jawahar Park, Khanpur
New Delhi-110062
Permanent address:
Plot no.3, Tera Sapam Leirak
Imphal West, Manipur-795001
FIR No. : 44/2012
Police Station : Neb Sarai
Under Section : 27(b)(ii) & 27(d) Drugs &
Cosmetics Act, 1940
Date of Institution : 21.05.2013
Arguments heard : 29.07.2025
Date of Decision : 29.07.2025
Decision : Acquitted
JUDGMENT
On 10.02.2012, complainant D Sudhakaran, Drugs Inspector, Drugs Control Department, Government of NCT of Delhi gave a written complaint to Sub Inspector (SI) Surendra Singh to the effect that based on an information received in his office, he along with witnesses had inspected the premises of one NAVJEET Digitally signed by NAVJEET BUDHIRAJ BUDHIRAJ Date: 2025.07.29 18:17:01 +0530 Page No. 1 of 35 State Vs. M Shankar Sharma SC no.457/2019 FIR no.44/12 PS Neb Sarai M. Shankar (accused herein), Son of Sh. M G Sharma, partner of M/s Prefix Care, Resident of E-13, 3 rd Floor Jawahar Park, Devli Road, New Delhi-110062, who was found manufacturing for sale and distribution various items of drugs (medical devices) without holding a requisite drug license at the premises situated at E-13, Basement, Jawahar Park, Devli Road, New Delhi-110062 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'premises in question'). Therefore, the complainant seized and took into his possession all thirty three items of drugs (medical devices), equipments and packing materials stocked from accused on 09.02.2012 as per details given in the spot memo and receipt in form 16, both dated 09.02.2012, which were prepared on the spot in presence of witnesses. The said act of the accused was found in contravention of the provisions of section 18(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (for short 'the said act') punishable under section 27 of the said act.
2. Predicated on the said complaint, first information report (FIR) was registered for the offences under section 18(c)/27 of the said act and further investigation was marked to SI Surendra Singh (IO).
3. During the course of further investigation, site plan was prepared and statement of all the members who were involved in the Drugs Department Raiding Party and conducted raid on 09.02.2012 in guidance of complainant D. Sudhakaran, Drugs Inspector at premises in question was recorded. During the said raid, in the presence of accused, thirty three items were NAVJEET Page No. 2 of 35 State Vs. M Shankar Sharma SC no.457/2019 FIR no.44/12 PS Neb Sarai BUDHIRAJ Digitally signed by NAVJEET BUDHIRAJ Date: 2025.07.29 18:17:07 +0530 seized and from the said seized items, two samples in three portions as samples were taken by the IO who went to his office along with samples for investigation. On 10.02.2012, complainant handed over photocopy of items, spot memo Form 16 and one set of photocopy of pan card/driving license of accused to SI along with complaint.
4. Accused obtained anticipatory bail on 01.03.2012 and on 04.03.2012 came to police station and was produced before SI, upon which, SI interrogated the accused, arrested him in the present case, recorded his disclosure statement and as per direction of the Court, accused was released on bail after producing sound surety i.e. his sister namely Anita Sharma.
5. During further investigation, suspect Prem Jeet Singh was interrogated but no evidence regarding his involvement was found and, therefore, he was placed in column no.12 of the charge sheet.
6. On the back of interrogation and statement of witnesses, sufficient material was found to place the accused M Shankar Sharma in column no.11 and, therefore, charge sheet for the offence under section 18(c)/27 of the said act was prepared against the accused and filed before the court.
7. Cognizance of the offence was taken vide order dated 03.06.2013 by Ld. MM-04, Rohini against both accused persons namely N G Premjeet Singh and M Shankar Sharma and Page No. 3 of 35 State Vs. M Shankar Sharma SC no.457/2019 FIR no.44/12 PS Neb Sarai Digitally signed NAVJEET by NAVJEET BUDHIRAJ BUDHIRAJ Date: 2025.07.29 18:17:10 +0530 after supplying of documents to them, the case was committed to the court of Session. Vide order dated 17.07.2015, accused N G Premjeet Singh stood discharged from the present case and vide order dated 22.08.2015, charge was framed against accused M Shankar Sharma for the offence under section 27(b)(ii) and under section 27(d) of the said act to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
8. During prosecution evidence, eight (08) witnesses were examined, comprising of complainant, other witnesses from the Drug Department and police officials who participated in the investigation proceeding. Witnesses examined are enlisted as under:
A. PW1 Sh. D Sudhkaran, Drug Inspector, Drug Control Department, Delhi is the complainant who deposed on the lines of his complaint and got marked Form 17 as Ex.PW1/A, Form 17A as Ex.PW1/B, Form 16 as Ex.PW1/C, spot memo as Ex.PW1/D, letter dated 09.02.2012 deposited by accused along with self certified copies of telephone bills, partnership deed and sale bills of the firm namely Prefix Care as Ex.PW1/E (colly), complaint received in the office of drugs controller by email as Ex.PW1/F, application for obtaining permission to keep the seized drugs in his custody at his office as Ex.PW1/G, copy of order dated 05.03.2012 as Ex.PW1/H, letter dated 11.07.2012 as Ex.PW1/I, test reports of Form 13 as Ex.PW1/J-1 and Ex.PW1/J-2. He also correctly identified the samples as Ex.P1 (mercury introducer needle) and Ex.P2 (shine wire). He also got Page No. 4 of 35 State Vs. M Shankar Sharma SC no.457/2019 FIR no.44/12 PS Neb Sarai marked his complaint dated 10.02.2012 as Ex.PW1/K, copy of FIR as Ex.PW1/L, memo dated 06.08.2012 as Ex.PW1/M, Form 18 (two in number) as Ex.PW1/N-1 and Ex.PW1/N-2, memo dated 30.08.2012 as Ex.PW1/O and its enclosures as Ex.PW1/O-1 to Ex.PW1/O-3, complaint dated 04.10.2012 as Ex.PW1/P. During his deposition on 12.01.2017, he brought the seized property which was in the same condition in which it was seized from the accused on 09.02.12 and got marked the same as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-33. During his deposition, he correctly identified the accused M Shankar Sharma. He was cross examined on behalf of the accused at length.
B. PW2 is Sh. Abhishek Chawla, Assistant Drug Controller of India, posted at Mumbai Air Cargo, CDSCO, Mumbai who deposed that on 09.02.2012, he was working as Drug Inspector in CDSCO at Ghaziabad, UP. He joined the raid in the present case on the request of Delhi State Drug Control Department and subsequent instructions from his controlling authority. He further deposed that he along with Dharmender Pandey, Sandeep BJ (Drug Inspector) and D. Sudhakaran went to E-13, Jawahar Park, Devli Road, New Delhi to conduct raid and at the time of raid, the raiding team found a full fledged factory running in the basement of the aforesaid premises. He further deposed that on the way to the place of raid, an informer or complainant also joined in the raiding team. During deposition, he correctly identified the accused M Shankar Sharma. He further deposed regarding Form 16 already Ex.PW1/C and spot memo along with annexure A already Ex.PW1/D which were prepared by D. Digitally signed by NAVJEET NAVJEET BUDHIRAJ BUDHIRAJ Date: 2025.07.29 18:17:15 +0530 Page No. 5 of 35 State Vs. M Shankar Sharma SC no.457/2019 FIR no.44/12 PS Neb Sarai Sudhakaran and both the said documents appended his signatures. He also deposed about Form 17 as already Ex.PW1/A and Form 17A Ex.PW1/B. He also correctly identified the photographs of seized articles i.e. Ex.PW2/I to Ex.PW2/16. He also deposed that the actual case properties already exhibited as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-33 in the evidence of PW1. He was cross examined on behalf of the accused at length.
C. PW3 is Sh. Dharmendra Pandey, S/o Sh. Krishan Dev Pandey, Drug Inspector, CDSCO Headquarters, FDA Bhawan, Kotla Road, ITO, New Delhi who deposed about the original Form 17 as already Ex.PW1/A, original Form 17A as already Ex.PW1/B, spot memo as already Ex.PW1/D, Form 16 along with annexure A as already Ex.PW1/C, forwarding memo as already Ex.PW1/N1 and Form 18 as already Ex.PW1/N2. He got marked letter as Ex.PW3/A. He also deposed about memo through which reports were forwarded to accused as already Ex.PW1/M. During deposition, he correctly identified the case property as Ex.P1 (50 pieces of Mercury introducer needle) and Ex.P2 (25 pieces of Shinewire (guide wire A)). He also deposed about the other seized case properties as mentioned in Form 16 and spot memo which were seized from the accused on 09.02.2012 in his presence as already Ex.P1 to Ex.P33. Identity of the accused M Shankar Sharma was not disputed during his deposition. He was also cross examined on behalf of the accused at length.
D. PW4 is Sh. Sundeep B J, S/o Sh. Balkrishna Jivnapurkar, Drug Inspector who deposed that on 09.02.2012, he was posted Page No. 6 of 35 State Vs. M Shankar Sharma SC no.457/2019 FIR no.44/12 PS Neb Sarai Digitally signed NAVJEET by NAVJEET BUDHIRAJ BUDHIRAJ Date: 2025.07.29 18:17:18 +0530 as Drug Inspector in Drugs Control Department, Govt of NCT of Delhi. He deposed that on receipt of complaint from Anil Gaur that he along with D Sudhakaran, Dharmender Pandey and Abhishek Chawla went to Devli Road, Khanpur where complainant joined them. He deposed about Form 17 as already Ex.PW1/A, Form 17A as already Ex.PW1/B, spot memo as already Ex.PW1/D, Form 16 along with annexure A as already Ex.PW1/C. During deposition, he correctly identified the case property as Ex.P1 (50 pieces of Mercury introducer needle) and Ex.P2 (25 pieces of Shinewire (guide wire A)). He also deposed about the other seized case properties as mentioned in Form 16 and spot memo which were seized from the accused on 09.02.2012 in his presence as already Ex.P1 to Ex.P33. Identity of the accused M Shankar Sharma was not disputed during his deposition. He was also cross examined on behalf of the accused at length.
E. PW5 is Sh. Anil Kumar who deposed that he had information that one person namely Premjit Singh used to run office in the name and style of Prefix Care at Devli Road, Khanpur, Delhi and was manufacturing and selling drugs and medical equipments without any license. He further deposed that he also checked the list of authorized persons who used to manufacture and sell drugs and medical equipments on the website and he found that name was not there on the website and thereafter, he shared the said information with office of Drugs Controller at Karkardooma, Delhi. He further deposed that one officer D Sudhakaran asked him about the location of office of the said person and on Page No. 7 of 35 State Vs. M Shankar Sharma SC no.457/2019 FIR no.44/12 PS Neb Sarai 09.02.2012, the team from Drugs Office including D Sudhakaran, Sandeep, Abhishek Pandey and 02-03 officials came at Devli Road where he met with them and he led them to a basement of E-13, at Jawahar Park, Devli Road, New Delhi. He correctly identified the accused during his deposition. He deposed about spot memo/recovery memo as already Ex.PW1/D. He deposed that he signed on documents already Ex.PW1/B and Ex.PW1/C. During his deposition, identity of the accused was not disputed. He was cross examined on behalf of the accused at length.
F. PW6 is Ct. Sanjeev Kumar who got marked the arrest memo of accused as Ex.PW6/A, personal search memo of accused as Ex.PW6/B. He correctly identified the accused during his deposition. He was not cross examined on behalf of the accused despite opportunity given.
G. PW7 is ASI Nawal Singh who deposed that on 10.02.2012 he was posted as Head Constable at PS Neb Sarai and was working there as Duty Officer. He got marked his endorsement as Ex.PW7/A and certificate under section 65B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex.PW7/B. He deposed about the computerized copy of FIR as already Ex.PW1/L. He was cross examined on behalf of the accused.
H. PW8 is Inspector Surendra Singh, who was the investigating officer of the present case and who deposed about various stages of the investigation. He got marked the rukka as Ex.PW8/A and Digitally signed by NAVJEET NAVJEET BUDHIRAJ BUDHIRAJ Date:
Page No. 8 of 35 State Vs. M Shankar Sharma SC no.457/2019 FIR no.44/12 PS Neb Sarai 2025.07.29 18:17:24 +0530 site plan as Ex.PW8/B. He also deposed about arrest of the accused vide arrest memo already Ex.PW6/A and his personal search vide memo already Ex.PW6/B. He also got marked disclosure statement of accused as Ex.PW8/C. He correctly identified the accused during his deposition. He was cross examined on behalf of the accused at length.
9. Prosecution evidence was brought to quietus vide order dated 05.05.2025 followed by statement of accused under section 313 Cr.P.C wherein the accused claimed that the present case has been proceeded against him by Mr. D Sudhakaran, Drugs Inspector at the behest of his business competitor Mr Anil Kumar with vengeance and illegality. He further stated that PW1 D Sudhakaran had no power to carry out inspection which he had done along with three other Drugs Inspectors who had no authority to do the same. He further stated that the police never carried out any investigation and the entire so called investigation has been carried out at police station and the IO of the case is not an Inspector designated under the said Act and he had no power to act as Inspector. Even otherwise the IO was a sub inspector and had no qualification as prescribed for the inspector in the said Act. He further stated that no procedure for carrying out the inspection was followed as prescribed in the said Act.
10. Accused also asserted in his statement that PW1 D. Sudhakaran had illegally proceeded against him along with other drug inspectors at the instance of PW5 Sh. Anil Kumar who had business rivalry with them. He further stated that all the material Page No. 9 of 35 State Vs. M Shankar Sharma SC no.457/2019 FIR no.44/12 PS Neb Sarai seized were subsequently found to be of standard quality and the report of the analyst had been filed by the IO himself along with the charge sheet. He further stated that PW1 D Sudhakaran and other drug inspectors and PW5 Anil Kumar had already filed a wrong complaint, hence they have deposed on the same lines on which they had filed the false complaint.
11. Accused further stated that the articles which were recovered from his premises at E-13, Basement, Jawahar Park, Devli Road, New Delhi-62 were all branded articles with proper bills, lying there for the purposes of transit to the place at Imphal, Manipur. They had requisite licenses for stocking and sale at Manipur, copies of which were given to the IO and he had filed the same along with the charge sheet itself. He further claimed to be innocent and having committed no offence. He desired to lead defence evidence but eventually decided not to tender any evidence in his defence, following which, the matter was finally heard on behalf of both the sides.
12. On behalf of the State, Sh. L. D Singh, Ld. Additional PP for the State and complainant D. Sudhakaran from the Drugs Control Department advanced the arguments and on behalf of the accused, Ld. Counsel D Hasija, ably assisted by Ms. Prachi Hasija, advanced the arguments.
13. Points for determination Page No. 10 of 35 State Vs. M Shankar Sharma SC no.457/2019 FIR no.44/12 PS Neb Sarai Digitally signed by NAVJEET NAVJEET BUDHIRAJ BUDHIRAJ Date:
2025.07.29 18:17:30 +0530 The first point for determination is whether the prosecution launched in this case in the form of registration of FIR by PW8 Inspector Surendra Singh and consequent arrest of the accused M Shankar Sharma by him is legal and valid. The second point for determination is whether the accused was found manufacturing/stocking the drugs and medical devices in the premises in question for the purpose of sale. The third point for determination is whether the medical devices and drugs found stocked in the premises were mis- branded within the meaning of the said act.
Analysis
14. In regard to the first point of determination, Ld. Counsel for accused, by placing reliance upon the judgment of High Court of Jharkhand in Ganesh Prasad Vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors, 2022 SCC OnLine Jhar 1209, pointed out that the proceedings launched in this case were non-est and invalid as under the said act only the Drug Inspector was empowered to file the complaint and not the police Inspector who had registered the case and investigated the matter. The case law relied upon by Ld. Counsel for accused also speaks about the legal position as spelt out by the Supreme Court in Union of India Vs Ashok Sharma, Criminal Appeal No. 200/2020, which observations are reproduced herein:
"3. Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case has been lodged on the basis of complaint of Drug Inspector by the Officer-in-Charge, Ratu Police Station on 17.10.2019. He Page No. 11 of 35 State Vs. M Shankar Sharma SC no.457/2019 FIR no.44/12 PS Neb Sarai further submits that in the joint enquiry made by the team of Drug Inspector it was found that medicine was wrongly stored and for that the petitioner has not been able to produce any document. He further submits that in view of provision of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, only complaint shall be filed by the Drug Inspector who will proceed whereas in the case in hand police inspector has registered the case and investigated the matter. He further submits that this aspect of the matter is settled in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Union of India Vs. Ashok Sharma and Others" (Criminal Appeal No. 200 of 2020 (S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 4178 of 2019)), wherein para 150 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:- "150. Thus, we may cull out our conclusions/directions as follows:
I. In regard to cognizable offences under Chapter IV of the Act, in view of Section 32 of the Act and also the scheme of the CrPC, the Police Officer cannot prosecute offenders in regard to such offences. Only the persons mentioned in Section 32 are entitled to do the same.
II. There is no bar to the Police Officer, however, to investigate and prosecute the person where he has committed an offence, as stated under Section 32(3) of the Act, i.e., if he has committed any cognizable offence under any other law.
III. Having regard to the scheme of the CrPC and also the mandate of Section 32 of the Act and on a conspectus of powers which are available with the Drugs Inspector under the Act and also his duties, a Police Officer cannot register a FIR under Section 154 of the CrPC, in NAVJEET regard to cognizable offences under BUDHIRAJ Digitally signed by NAVJEET BUDHIRAJ Date: 2025.07.29 18:17:36 +0530 Page No. 12 of 35 State Vs. M Shankar Sharma SC no.457/2019 FIR no.44/12 PS Neb Sarai Chapter IV of the Act and he cannot investigate such offences under the provisions of the CrPC. IV. Having regard to the provisions of Section 22(1)(d) of the Act, we hold that an arrest can be made by the Drugs Inspector in regard to cognizable offences falling under Chapter IV of the Act without any warrant and otherwise treating it as a cognizable offence. He is, however, bound by the law as laid down in D.K. Basu (supra) and to follow the provisions of CrPC.
V. It would appear that on the understanding that the Police Officer can register a FIR, there are many cases where FIRs have been registered in regard to cognizable offences falling under Chapter IV of the Act. We find substance in the stand taken by learned Amicus Curiae and direct that they should be made over to the Drugs Inspectors, if not already made over, and it is for the Drugs Inspector to take action on the same in accordance with the law. We must record that we are resorting to our power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India in this regard. VI. Further, we would be inclined to believe that in a number of cases on the understanding of the law relating to the power of arrest as, in fact, evidenced by the facts of the present case, police officers would have made arrests in regard to offences under Chapter IV of the Act.
Therefore, in regard to the power of arrest, we make it clear that our decision that Police Officers do not have power to arrest in respect of cognizable offences under Chapter IV of the Act, will operate with effect from the date of this Judgment.
VII. We further direct that the Drugs Inspectors, who carry out the arrest, Page No. 13 of 35 State Vs. M Shankar Sharma SC no.457/2019 FIR no.44/12 PS Neb Sarai must not only report the arrests, as provided in Section 58 of the CrPC, but also immediately report the arrests to their superior Officers. "
In the said judgement it has been held that in view of Section 32 of the Act and also the scheme of the Cr.P.C., the Police Officer cannot prosecute offenders in regard to such offences and not entitled to investigate the case."
14.1. Having noted the conspectus of the legal position governing the proceedings under the said act, in the instant case, the testimony of PW8 Inspector Surendra Singh, who was the investigating officer of the present case, is required to be referred to as under:
"On 10.02.2012, I was posted as Sub-Inspector PS Neb Sarai. On that day, in the evening time, complainant D. Sudhakaran (Drug Inspector) came to the police station and he handed over one complaint along with some annexures to SHO concerned. On the directions of SHO, the said complaint was marked to me and I prepared the rukka, now exhibited as Ex. PW8/A bearing my signatures at Point X, and the case was got registered.
On 11.02.2012, complainant along with other members of raid party consisting of four Drug Inspectors and one public person Anil Kumar came to the police station and they joined the investigation and we went to the spot i.e. E-13, Jawahar Park, Neb Sarai, New Delhi. I prepared the site plan, now exhibited as Ex. PW8/B bearing my signatures at Point X, at the instance of the complainant. Thereafter, we returned to the police station and I recorded the statements of the all the members NAVJEET BUDHIRAJ Digitally signed by Page No. 14 of 35 State Vs. M Shankar Sharma SC no.457/2019 FIR no.44/12 PS Neb Sarai NAVJEET BUDHIRAJ Date: 2025.07.29 18:17:42 +0530 of raiding party.
Thereafter, as per the information available on record, I along with beat staff reached at the house of accused M. Shankar Sharma (present in the Court today and correctly identified by the witness) i.e. E-13, 3rd Floor Jawahar Park, Neb Sarai, New Delhi but accused was not found present there.
After some days, I received the copy of anticipatory bail of accused M. Shankar Sharma wherein accused was granted anticipatory bail. Thereafter, on 04.03.2012, accused M. Shankar had joined the investigation and I interrogated him in the presence of Ct. Sanjeev. Thereafter, I formally arrested accused M. Shankar Sharma which is already Ex. PW6/A bearing my signatures at Point X. I also conducted the personal search of accused vide memo already Ex.
PW6/B bearing my signatures at Point X. I also recorded the disclosure statement of accused which is now exhibited as Ex.
PW8/C bearing my signatures at Point X. I recorded the statement of Ct. Sanjeev who had joined investigation.
On 06.03.2012, I gave notice to co-
accused N. G. Premjit Singh for joining the investigation and, accordingly, he joined the investigation on 07.03.2012. I interrogated him in the presence of Ct. Sanjeev. During investigation of this case, complainant handed over me the order of the Court regarding custody of the case property and I placed the same on record. I also recorded the statement of the landlord of the accused.
Complainant handed over me some reports of exhibits and verification of licence and I placed the same with Page No. 15 of 35 State Vs. M Shankar Sharma SC no.457/2019 FIR no.44/12 PS Neb Sarai charge-sheet. Thereafter, I prepared the charge-sheet against accused M. Shankar Sharma and co-accused N. G. Premjit Singh, who was kept in Column No. 12 (since discharged) and filed the same in the Court."
14.2. In regard to the aforesaid issue, complainant D Sudhakaran sought to clarify that through the present FIR was registered in relation to the offence in question but a complaint was also filed by him on behalf of the department which was eventually tagged with the FIR proceedings and, therefore, the court can assume the proceedings to have continued on the basis of the said complaint (reliance is placed upon the judgments i.e. ASM Enterprises and Ors Vs. State, Delhi High Court, decided on 23.12.2020, State of Karnataka Vs. Vikram Chemical Laboratories and Ors, 1975 CRILJ 332 and Delhi Administration Vs. Puran Lal Ahuja, 28 (1985) DLT 392).
14.3. As against this, Ld. Counsel for accused countered that though there was a separate complaint filed by the department but eventually case was proceeded further after the charge sheet was filed since the present FIR, which is evident from the order dated 04.10.2012, of then Ld. MM-04 which reflects the submissions of the complainant that they had already registered the FIR and as per their knowledge, IO would file the challan. Thereafter, there was no such submission from the side of the complainant to proceed with the complaint instead of FIR.
14.4. The order dated 04.10.2012 of the then Ld. MM reflects the afore-stated position, which coupled with the fact Digitally signed by NAVJEET NAVJEET BUDHIRAJ Page No. 16 of 35 State Vs. M Shankar Sharma SC no.457/2019 FIR no.44/12 PS Neb Sarai BUDHIRAJ Date:
2025.07.29 18:17:47 +0530 that at no point of time, complainant made any submission to proceed with the complaint and rather all throughout the proceedings were carried out after the charge sheet was filed, it belies the aforesaid submission on behalf of the department that the present matter can be treated to have been proceeded further as a complaint case.
14.5. Further, it is manifest from the afore-noted examination in chief of PW8 that after the complaint was marked to him, he prepared the rukka Ex.PW8/A and got the case registered. Further, as per the testimony of PW7 ASI Naval Singh, on 10.02.2012, at about 07:05pm, SI Surendra Singh (PW8) came to the police station Neb Sarai and handed over him original rukka for registration of the FIR, which was then registered as Ex.PW1/L. However, under section 32 of the said act, the Drug Inspector is authorized to file the complaint case only upon which the criminal court is authorized to take cognizance for prosecution of the accused and in the absence of the same, the entire criminal proceedings shall be bad, illegal and without jurisdiction. Therefore, this point of determination is decided in favor of the accused and entire proceedings launched herein cannot be sustained.
15. The second point of determination is in regard to the manufacture / stock and sale of drugs as enunciated in section 18 of the said act. Before delving into the evidence tendered by the prosecution, it is imperative to note the relevant provision and its construction as done by the Supreme Court in case titled as Mohd Page No. 17 of 35 State Vs. M Shankar Sharma SC no.457/2019 FIR no.44/12 PS Neb Sarai Shabir Vs. State of Maharashtra, (1979) 1 SCC 568 relied upon by Ld. Counsel for accused. The relevant paragraph is noted herein under:
"On an interpretation of section 27, it seems to us that the arguments of Mr. Singh is well founded and must prevail. The words used in section 27, namely, "manufacture for sale", sells, have a comma after each clause but there is no comma after the clause "stocks or exhibits for sale". Thus the section postulate three separate categories of cases and no other. (1) manufacture for sale; (2) actual sale; (3) stocking or exhibiting for sale or distribution of any drugs. The absence of any comma after the word "stocks" clearly indicates that the clause "stocks or exhibits for sale" is one indivisible whole and it contemplates not merely stocking the drugs but stocking the drugs for the purpose of sale and unless all the ingredients of this category are satisfied, section 27 of the Act would not be attracted. In the present case there is no evidence to show that the appellant had either got these tablets for sale or was selling them or had stocked them for sale. Mr. Khanna appearing for the State, however, contended that the word "stock" used in section is wide enough to include the possession 1000 of a person with the tablets and where such a person is in the possession of tablets of a very huge quantity, a presumption should be drawn that they were meant for sale or for distribution. In our opinion, the contenton is wholly untenable and must be rejected. The inter pretation sought to be placed by Shri Khanna does NAVJEET not flow from a true and proper BUDHIRAJ Digitally signed by NAVJEET BUDHIRAJ Date: 2025.07.29 18:17:53 +0530 Page No. 18 of 35 State Vs. M Shankar Sharma SC no.457/2019 FIR no.44/12 PS Neb Sarai interpretation of section 27. We, therefore, hold that before a person can be liable for prosecution or conviction under section 27 (a) (i)
(ii) read with section 18 (c) of the Act, it must be proved by the prosecution affirmatively that he was manufacturing the drugs for sale or was selling the same or had stocked them or exhibited the articles for sale. The possession simpliciter of the articles does not appear to be punishable under any of the provisions of the Act. If, therefore, the essential ingredients of section 27 are not satisfied the plea of guilty cannot lead the Court to convict the appellant."
Deposition of witnesses qua the manufacturing activity and stocking at the premises 15.1. As per the prosecution version, the raiding team comprised of PW1 D. Sudhakaran, Drug Inspector, PW2 Abhishek Chawla, who was also working as Drug Inspector in CDSCO at Ghaziabad, UP, PW3 Dharmendra Pandey, who was also posted as Drug Inspector in Drug Control Department during the relevant time and PW4 Sundeep B J who was also posted as Drug Inspector in Drug Control Department, Govt of NCT of Delhi.
15.2. For the purpose of discussion herein, this court deem it judicious to first scrutinize and evaluate the testimony of PW1 D Sudhakaran and PW4 Sundeep B J.
15.3. Complainant/PW1 deposed that on 09.02.2012, Digitally signed by NAVJEET NAVJEET BUDHIRAJ BUDHIRAJ Date:
Page No. 19 of 35 State Vs. M Shankar Sharma SC no.457/2019 FIR no.44/12 PS Neb Sarai 2025.07.29 18:17:59 +0530 when he along with other Inspectors of CDSCO and other witnesses inspected the premises in question, he found the accused manufacturing drugs (medical devices) namely Shine Wire and Mercury Introducer Needles and he was also found manufacturing and stocking various drugs in the premises. He further deposed that various finished goods drugs/semi finished drugs along with packing material, printed labels, equipments used for manufacturing was found in the said premises.
15.4. PW1 was extensively cross examined on behalf of the accused on myriad aspects, manufacturing being one, the relevant excerpts of which are noted herein below:
".....One gas sterilizer, one band sealer and one paper cutter were available there. Gas sterilizer is meant for sterilizing, catheters i.e. Ex. P23, Ex. P24 and Ex. P25. As per my knowledge, band sealer is meant for sealing of the catheter packets and paper cutter is used for sealing the polythene bags. I had seized all three manufacturing machineries and the same are Ex. P31, Ex. P32 and Ex. P33. There was a power supply to machines Ex. P31, Ex. P32 and Ex. P33.
.......
Q. Ex. Pl to Ex. P6 are avanti-trans radial kits. Did you find any machinery to manufacture these products at the said premises on the day of your raid?
A. The avanti-trans radial kits are medical devices were kept in a packed condition and a sterilizer was required for sterilizing these kits and a sealer for sealing purpose. The said machines were seized by me.
NAVJEET BUDHIRAJ Digitally signed by NAVJEET Page No. 20 of 35 State Vs. M Shankar Sharma SC no.457/2019 FIR no.44/12 PS Neb Sarai BUDHIRAJ Date: 2025.07.29 18:18:08 +0530 Q. I have asked you as to whether any machine to manufacture Ex. P1 to Ex. P6 was found at the premises? A. Yes.
Q. Which are those machines and what are their exhibit numbers? A. Machines are Ex. P31, Ex. P32 and Ex. P33.
Q. You have just said that Ex. P31, Ex. P32 and Ex. P33 are for sterilization of the kits. Please tell about the machines which manufacture Ex, Pl to Ex. P3 because sterilizing comes after these products have already been manufactured.
A. The kits and catheters are obtained in lose open condition and they are packed inside a packet and then it is sterilized and the sterilization is a part of manufacturing activity as per my knowledge.
Q. As per you, kits and catheters were obtained by the accused in lose open condition, but not manufactured by him. These were sterilized, packed and labeled by the accused. Is it correct?
A. Yes. It is correct that kits and catheters were obtained the accused in lose open condition, but not manufactured by him.
Q. For Ex. P7 i.e. shine wire-guide wire A, did you find any machinery for manufacturing the same in the premises.
A. Yes. The machine which is used for sterilization is a basic requirement since all these medical devices are sterile in nature since they are used in internal parts of human body which should be sterile"
Q. You have just said that "yes", you found machinery for a manufacturing shine wire-guide wire NAVJEET BUDHIRAJ Digitally signed by NAVJEET BUDHIRAJ Date: 2025.07.29 18:18:12 +0530 Page No. 21 of 35 State Vs. M Shankar Sharma SC no.457/2019 FIR no.44/12 PS Neb Sarai A. which is that machinery?Please do not inform about sterilization process.
A. Sealer and cutter i.e. Ex, P31 and Ex. P33.
Q. Whether Ex. P31 and Ex. P33 are used to "manufacture" Ex. P7? If yes, please tell the procedure used in Ex. P31 and Ex, P33 for manufacturing.
A. Yes. Ex, P31 and Ex, P33 are used for manufacturing/packing purpose of the said kits. Again said, mainly it is used for packing.
Further said, the packing is part of the manufacturing process.
Q. The total manufacturing process has packing a part. My question is how Ex. P31 and Ex, P33 manufacture Ex. P7 i.e. shine wire- guide wire A. A. All these kits are obtained in lose conditions and they are cut into small pieces, and since being basically rubber tubes and syringes and they are packed and this activity does not require any major machines since they are cut into pieces according to the requirement of surgeon and then packed in packets and labelled and then sterilized.
Q. All cutting, labeling etc. activity has been described by you above.
Does it mean that the accused only used to sterilize and pack Ex. P7, but does not manufacture those rubber tubes, syringes etc?
A. Yes.
Q. For Ex. P8 & Ex. P9 i.e. mercury introducer needle, did you find any machinery for manufacturing the same in the premises.
A. The mercury introducer needle was found in the packed condition and it was considered as a finished goods and no machines for manufacturing mercury introducer needle was found in the premises.
Page No. 22 of 35 State Vs. M Shankar Sharma SC no.457/2019 FIR no.44/12 PS Neb Sarai Q. Guide wire loose (1500 pieces), which is Ex. P17 have been stated by you that they were been manufactured by the accused. Did you find any machinery used for its manufacturing in the premises and seized the same?
A. I had not seized any machinery used for manufacturing of Ex.
P17.No manufacturing machinery was found available at the spot. Vol. Only packing machineries were found at the said place, which were seized.
Q. Which are those machines which you seized for manufacturing Ex.
P17?
A. Ex. P30 and Ex. P31.
Q. Ex. P30 are 100 pieces of loose syringe-05 ml. How these loose syringes are used for manufacturing guide wire, Ex. P17?
A. The needles were being used for manufacturing guide wire Ex. P17.
Again said, the
machines seized were Ex. P31 and
Ex. P32.
Q. You have just said that needles were being used for manufacturing guide wire. Can you tell how syringes are used for manufacturing guide wire?
A. Since guide wire was a newly notified drug during the time of seizure, I do not know the exact procedure for manufacturing the said guide wire. I still do not know about the manufacturing process of guide wire."
15.5. PW2 Sh. Abhishek Chawla, Assistant Drug Controller of India, supplemented the testimony of PW1 and deposed that at the time of raid in the premises in question, they NAVJEET BUDHIRAJ Page No. 23 of 35 State Vs. M Shankar Sharma SC no.457/2019 FIR no.44/12 PS Neb Sarai Digitally NAVJEET signed by BUDHIRAJ Date: 2025.07.29 18:18:17 +0530 found medical devices being manufactured in the said factory which are (1) Catheter, (ii) Guide wire, (iii) introducer needles,
(iv) semi-finished medical devices, (v) labels, (vi) printing material etc. PW2 was also comprehensively cross examined on behalf of the accused and on the aspect of manufacturing of medical devices, the significant aspects of his cross examination are also reproduced as under:
"....Q. Out of the three machines described by you above i.e. ETO Sterilizer, band sealer, paper cutter, which machine manufactures the medical devices mentioned by you above i.e. catheter, control syringes, guide wires, trans radial kits, control devices?
A. Since sterilization process and packing process are part of manufacturing, therefore, all the three machines are used for various processes for manufacturing the above-mentioned devices.
It is correct that prior to sterilization process and packing process, the aforesaid three machines are not used for actually making / manufacturing the above-mentioned devices. Voltd. Sterilization is done after packing process through ethylene oxide which seeps through the packet.
........
Q. Kindly tell that items at Sr. No. 01 to 06 in Ex. PW1/D were being manufactured by using which machine out of machines at Sr. No. 31, 32 and 33?
Ans. Machines at Sr. No. 32 and 33 were being used to produce / manufacture the items at Sr. No. 01 to 06.Q. Kindly tell that item at Sr. No. 07
in Ex. PW1/D was being Page No. 24 of 35 State Vs. M Shankar Sharma SC no.457/2019 FIR no.44/12 PS Neb Sarai manufactured by using which machine out of machines at Sr. No. 31, 32 and 33?
Ans. Majorly all the three machines mentioned at Sr. No. 31 to 33 were being used to manufacture all the products mentioned at Sr. No. 01 to 30 in Ex. PW1/D. Q. How the machines mentioned at Sr. No. 31 to 33 were being used to manufacture items at Sr. No. 08 and 09 in Ex. PW1/D? Please describe. Ans. The needles available in the market were being packaged with sticker on it and sterilized using these machines.
ETO Sterilizer mentioned at Sr. No. 32 in Ex. PW1/D was being used to sterilize. Paper cutter mentioned at Sr. No. 31 was used for cutting of label into proper sizes. The machine at Sr. No. 33 was used for the purpose of packaging.
I cannot recollect specifically if at the time of raid, work on ETO Sterilizer was going on. ETO Sterilizer was seized and sealed in my presence at the time of raid on 09.02.2012. For ETO Sterilizer to work, presence of cartridge in the machine is necessary.
Q. Can the ETO Sterilizer work without cartridge?
Ans. ETO Sterilizer can work without cartridge but it cannot be ensured that the product has been properly sterilized."
15.6. PW4 Sundeep B J deposed that on 09.02.2012, he was posted as Drug Inspector in Drug Control Department, Government of NCT of Delhi and on receipt of complaint from one Anil Gaur, he along with other inspectors landed up at the premises in question where accused met. On search of the Digitally signed by NAVJEET NAVJEET BUDHIRAJ BUDHIRAJ Date:
2025.07.29 18:18:22 +0530 Page No. 25 of 35 State Vs. M Shankar Sharma SC no.457/2019 FIR no.44/12 PS Neb Sarai premises, they found various types of manufactured medical devices (drugs) like Shinewire (Guidewire A), Mercury Introducer Needle, Platinum Dual Luman Straight Catheter, Avanti Transradial Kit etc. Accused was then asked to produce the license for manufacture and stocking of the said drugs, which he could not produce. Further, with regard to further process of investigation carried out in relation to the stored medical devices (drugs), PW4 testified as under:
"On 09.02.2012, I was posted as Drug Inspector in Drugs Control Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi. On receipt of complaint from Anil Gaur that M/s Prefix Care was running drugs factory at Khanpur Road without licence, I along with D. Sudhakaran, Dharmender Pandey and Abhishek Chawla went to Devli Road, Khanpur where complainant Anil Gaur joined us. Complainant led us to the premises situated at E-13, Basement, Jawahar Park, Devli Road, Khanpur where manufacturing of medical devices was going on. One person who introduced himself as M. Shankar Sharma (identity not disputed; exemption application allowed only for today subject to the condition that he shall not dispute his identity) met us there. We introduced ourselves to him and offered our personal search to accused M. Shankar Sharma, however, he denied to search the team.
On search of the aforesaid premises, we found various type of manufactured medical devices (drugs) like Shinewire (Guidewire A), Mercury Introducer Needle, Platinum Dual Luman Straight Catheter, Avanti Transradial Kit etc. On seeing the aforesaid medical Page No. 26 of 35 State Vs. M Shankar Sharma SC no.457/2019 FIR no.44/12 PS Neb Sarai devices (drugs), we asked the accused for producing the requisite licence for manufacturing for sale and stocking the aforesaid drugs in the said premises. However, accused did not produce any valid licence for manufacturing for sale or stocking the aforesaid drugs.
Sh. Dharmender Pandey who was part of raiding collected two samples of Shinewire (Guidewire A) and Mercury Introducer Needle. He prepared Form 17 which is already exhibited as Ex. PW1/A on the spot which bears my signatures at Point F. He offered payment for the sample drugs taken but accused refused to take the same. Hence, receipt qua the same in Form 17A which is already exhibited as Ex.
PW1/B was prepared at the spot which bears my signatures at Point D. Sh. D. Sudhakaran seized all the remaining stock of 33 items of drugs (medical devices), packaging material, machinery used in manufacturing of medical device vide Spot Memo is already Ex.
PW1/D bearing my signatures at Point E and Form 16 is already Ex.
PW1/C bearing my signatures at Point E. Copies of Form 17, Form 17A, Form 16 and Spot memo were given to the accused and he signed on the acknowledgements. His signatures on Form 17, Form 17A, Form 16 and Spot memo are at Points B. Police officials also enquired from me and recorded my statement.
(At this stage, the case property bearing Sample No. NZ/SAM/DP/A-109/2011-12 already exhibited as Ex. P1 and duly identified by PW3 today in the Court has been put to the witness. The box is labelled with the label of Mercury NAVJEET BUDHIRAJ Digitally Page No. 27 of 35 State Vs. M Shankar Sharma SC no.457/2019 FIR no.44/12 PS Neb Sarai signed by NAVJEET BUDHIRAJ Date:
2025.07.29 18:18:27 +0530 Introducer Needle on which Lot No. 11-014, Manufactured & Assembled by St. Stone Medical, Espana Spain. It bears the signatures of accused M. Shankar Sharma and DI Dharemender Pandey at Point A and B respectively. Same has been opened. It is found containing 50 pieces of Mercury introducer needle. The witness has correctly identified the case property which is already exhibited as Ex. P1.) (At this stage, the case property bearing Sample No. NZ/SAM/DP/A-108/2011-12 already exhibited as Ex. P2 and duly identified by PW3 today in the Court has been put to the witness. The box is labelled with the label of Shinewire, Ref. 19-450A, Lot 145- 2500, Manufactured & Assembled by St. Stone Medical, Litoral, Espana Spain. It bears the signatures of accused M. Shankar Sharma and DI Dharemender Pandey at Point A and B respectively. Same has been opened. It is found containing 25 pieces of Shinewire (Guide Wire A). The same is correctly identified by the witness which is already exhibited as Ex. P2.) The other seized case properties as mentioned in Form 16 Ex. PW1/C and Spot Memo Ex. PW1/D which were seized from the accused on 09.02.2012 in my presence are already exhibited as Ex. P1 to Ex.
P33"
15.7. In the cross examination of PW4, when he was asked as to when all of them reached at the spot of raid, the articles mentioned in annexure A of Ex.PW1/D were being manufactured by labour, PW4 responded that the labour was only busy with the cleaning activity of the articles lying there but was Page No. 28 of 35 State Vs. M Shankar Sharma SC no.457/2019 FIR no.44/12 PS Neb Sarai not manufacturing any of the articles. His further cross examination regarding the recovery or seizure of any machinery to manufacture these medical devices can be noticed herein under:
"Ques. For articles mentioned from Serial No. 01 to 06 in Annexure-A of Ex. PW1/D, did you find or recover or seize any machinery to manufacture these medical devices?
Ans. There was no machine found or recovered or seized which could manufacture medical devices mentioned from Serial No. 01 to 06 in Annexure-A of Ex. PW1/D. Only sterilizers or packing machines were there.
Ques. Please tell from Annexure-A of Ex. PW1/D, which seized articles is a machine for packing medical devices mentioned at Serial No. 01 to 06?
Ans. There is no machine mentioned in Annexure-A of Ex. PW1/D which could manufacture the medical devices mentioned at Serial No. 01 to 06.
Ques. For articles mentioned at Serial No. 07, 16 and 17 in Annexure-A of Ex. PW1/D, did you find or recover or seize any machinery to manufacture these medical devices?
Ans. There was no machine found or recovered or seized which could manufacture medical devices mentioned at Serial No. 07, 16 and
17 in Annexure-A of Ex. PW1/D. Only sterilizers or packing machines were there.
Ques. For articles mentioned from Serial No. 08 to 12 and Serial No. 14 in Annexure-A of Ex.
PW1/D, did you find or recover or seize any machinery to manufacture NAVJEET BUDHIRAJ Digitally signed by NAVJEET BUDHIRAJ Date:
2025.07.29 18:18:32 +0530 Page No. 29 of 35 State Vs. M Shankar Sharma SC no.457/2019 FIR no.44/12 PS Neb Sarai these medical devices?
Ans. There was no machine found or recovered or seized which could manufacture medical devices mentioned from Serial No. 08 to 12 and Serial No. 14 in Annexure-A of Ex. PW1/D. Only sterilizers or packing machines were there.
Ques. For articles mentioned at Serial No. 13 in Annexure-A of Ex. PW1/D, did you find or recover or seize any machinery to manufacture these medical devices?
Ans. There was no machine found or recovered or seized which could manufacture medical devices mentioned at Serial No.13 in Annexure-A of Ex. PW1/D. Only sterilizers or packing machines were there.
Ques. For articles mentioned at Serial No. 15 in Annexure-A of Ex. PW1/D, did you find or recover or seize any machinery to manufacture these medical devices?
Ans. There was no machine found or recovered or seized which could manufacture medical devices mentioned at Serial No. 15 in Annexure-A of Ex. PW1/D. Only sterilizers or packing machines were there.
Ques. For articles mentioned from Serial No. 18 to 20 in Annexure-A of Ex. PW1/D, did you find or recover or seize any machinery to manufacture these medical devices?
Ans. There was no machine found or recovered or seized which could manufacture medical devices mentioned from Serial No. 18 to 20 in Annexure-A of Ex. PW1/D. Only sterilizers or packing machines were there.
Ques. For articles mentioned from Serial No. 21 to 30 in Annexure-A of Ex. PW1/D, did you Page No. 30 of 35 State Vs. M Shankar Sharma SC no.457/2019 FIR no.44/12 PS Neb Sarai find or recover or seize any machinery to manufacture these medical devices?
Ans. There was no machine found or recovered or seized which could manufacture medical devices mentioned from Serial No. 21 to 30 in Annexure-A of Ex. PW1/D. Only sterilizers or packing machines were there.
The machine mentioned at Serial No. 32 in Annexure-A of Ex. PW1/D is sterilizer. I myself had not opened the said sterilizer at the time of raid. At the time of raid, the sterilizer was not in process, that is to say it was not working at that time. I do not know whether a sterilizer had cassette in it, so I do not know whether this sterilizer had a cassette or not. The purpose of sterilizer, as far as my knowledge goes, is to sterilize any item which is in packed condition. Again said, it can even sterilize a loose product as well.
Ques. In drugs trade, whether loose medical devices or packed medical devices or semi- finished medical devices are sterilized?
Ans. Only packed medical devices are sterilized."
15.8. Having meditated the testimony of the material witnesses for the prosecution, it can be safely concluded that there is no direct evidence on record that the accused was indulging in manufacturing activity of the medical devices (drugs) in the premises in question. Though, machineries Ex.P31 to Ex.P33 pertaining to sterilization and sealing were seized from the premises, but there is no evidence to indicate that those were being used for manufacturing purposes. In so far as stocking of Digitally signed by NAVJEET NAVJEET BUDHIRAJ Page No. 31 of 35 State Vs. M Shankar Sharma SC no.457/2019 FIR no.44/12 PS Neb Sarai BUDHIRAJ Date:
2025.07.29 18:18:44 +0530 medical devices (drugs) is concerned, as such, there is no opposition on behalf of the accused. Rather, accused during his questioning under section 313 Cr.P.C avouched that the goods, medical equipments and packing material were stocked in his premises, not for the purpose of sale, but for onward transportation to Imphal, Manipur. But, for the sake of an argument, even if it is assumed that accused was indulging in manufacturing and stocking of medical devices (drugs) from the premises in question, as noticed from the afore-noted judgment Mohd Shabir Vs. State of Maharashtra (supra), it is not only the act of manufacturing or stocking which is punishable but the same is shown to be done for the purpose of sale of the drugs/medical devices.
15.9. Apropos this, PW1, during his deposition, stated that during inspection accused voluntarily submitted a letter dated 09.02.2012 submitting self certified copies of sale bills of his firm M/s Prefix Care Ex.PW1/E (colly). Further, on 30.08.2012 when the premises of M/s Prefix Care was visited for verification of the sale invoices of the firm, N G Premjeet Singh, partner of the firm was present who had confirmed that their firm had sold medical devices (drugs) to M/s The Madras Medical Mission Chennai vide invoice no. PC-2012-A000154 dated 28.01.2012 for Rs.57960/-, however, this material in itself is not sufficient to establish that the drugs/medical devices were being sold from the premises in as much as no inquiry was conducted from M/s The Madras Medical Mission Chennai to prove the genuineness of the invoices. Merely placing on record some invoices purported to be Page No. 32 of 35 State Vs. M Shankar Sharma SC no.457/2019 FIR no.44/12 PS Neb Sarai sale document would not advance the cause of prosecution particularly when they had an opportunity to verify from the alleged seller as to the purchase of the drugs/medical devices, which is conspicuously missing in the present case.
15.10. Thus, in the light of the foregoing elucidation, though it is established that accused had stocked drugs at the premises but prosecution has miserably failed to build upon the allegation of stocking for the purpose of sale at the premises in question, which is one of the pre-requisites of charge under the said section.
16. The third point of determination is in regard to the charge of misbranding of the drugs/medical devices. The case of the prosecution is that some drugs were found at the premises with the label of St. Stone Medical, Avda. Litoral, Edif. Vistamar-
TO, Local 1829478 Estepona-Malaga (Spain). However, in the testimony of none of the prosecution witnesses, any substantive allegation is revealed as to in what manner the misbranding of the drugs was carried out at the premises by the accused. When PW1 D Sudhakaran was confronted in his cross examination as to whether he inquired from any sources or from the said M/s St. Stone Company about the authenticity or genuineness of the labels or products. PW1 responded in negative and stated that Spain was out of his jurisdiction. Further, when he was confronted about the batch numbers and lot numbers of the products of M/s Martech 1500 Delip Drive Harleysville Pa 19438, again PW1 responded in negative that the same was not NAVJEET BUDHIRAJ Page No. 33 of 35 State Vs. M Shankar Sharma SC no.457/2019 FIR no.44/12 PS Neb Sarai Digitally signed by NAVJEET BUDHIRAJ Date: 2025.07.29 18:18:52 +0530 verified since the place mentioned was out of India.
16.1. During further examination of PW1, he asserted that at the time of seizure of printed label/sticker of shine guide wire- A (300 pieces), he had checked the labels which was manufactured by a firm St. Stone of country Spain but he acknowledged having not probed from the said firm neither did he probe from any of the local supplier/dealer/wholesalers of the said firm.
16.2. Further cross examination of PW1 reveals that he sought to justify the allegation of misbranding drugs by stating that since the said labels were found to be packed in Devli area of New Delhi, on this basis, he concluded that labels Ex.P15 were not genuine. This circumstance in itself is not sufficient to prove the charge of misbranding. The record reveals that the initial complaint of the complainant/PW1 D. Sudhakaran, Drug Inspector as well as his examination in chief are bereft of the comprehensive details of the labels and products to prove that the accused was indulging in misbranding of the drugs as enunciated in section 18(a)(i) of the said act. Therefore, the charge under the said section of the said act also does not stand substantiated against the accused. The prosecution, thus, fails on the third point of determination as well.
17. In the result, having regard to the final conclusion on the aforementioned points of determination, it can be safely concluded that at the first instance, investigating agency was Page No. 34 of 35 State Vs. M Shankar Sharma SC no.457/2019 FIR no.44/12 PS Neb Sarai prohibited to launch the prosecution against the accused in the manner it has been done and further it has failed to prove the essential ingredients of the charges invoked against the accused. Consequently, accused M Shankar Sharma stands acquitted of all the charges against him. He is set at liberty. File be consigned to record room. Digitally signed by NAVJEET PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT NAVJEET BUDHIRAJ BUDHIRAJ Date:
ON 29.07.2025 2025.07.29
18:18:57
+0530
(Navjeet Budhiraja)
ASJ-02, South District
Saket Courts, New Delhi
29.07.2025
Certified that this judgment contains 35 pages and each page bears my signatures. Digitally signed by NAVJEET NAVJEET BUDHIRAJ BUDHIRAJ Date:
2025.07.29 18:19:01 +0530 (Navjeet Budhiraja) ASJ-02, South District Saket Courts, New Delhi 29.07.2025 Page No. 35 of 35 State Vs. M Shankar Sharma SC no.457/2019 FIR no.44/12 PS Neb Sarai