Karnataka High Court
M/S. Win Drugs Ltd vs State At Instance Of Drugs Inspector on 10 January, 2023
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
CRIMINAL PETITION No.3395 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
1. M/S WIN DRUGS LTD.,
BHIWANI ROAD
JIND, HARYANA-126 102
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR
NARESH MITTAL
S/O RAM KRISHAN
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
2. NARESH MITTAL,S/O RAM KRISHAN
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
MANAGAING DIRECTOR OF
M/S WIN DRUGS LTD.,
BHIWAN ROAD, JIND,
HARYANA-126 102
PRESENTLY R/AT No.323/5
GANDHINAGAR JIND, HARYANA 126 102
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI DESU REDDY G., ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE AT THE INSTANCE OF
DRUGS INSPECTOR
BENGALURU CIRCLE-3
BENGALURU-560 001. ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP)
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT AND ENTIRE
PROCEEDINGS IN PCR NO.49/2013 NOW REGISTERED AS
SPL.C.C.NO.118/2013 FOR THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF
SECTION 18(a) (i) R/W SECTION 17-B(d) WHICH ARE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 27(c) AND 27(d) OF THE DRUGS
AND COSMETIC ACT, 1940 PENDING ON THE FILE OF LEARNED
PRINCIPAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Respondent has filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. for the offence under Section 21 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 alleging that the subject drug manufactured by the petitioners/accused was of substandard quality. Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the aforesaid offence and issued summons. Taking exception of the same, this petition is filed.
2. Sri. Desi Reddy.G., learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the subject drug was manufactured in the month of December-2010, and the shelf life of the subject drug expired in the month of November-2012. However, the complaint was filed after expiry of the shelf life of the subject drug on 22.06.2013 3 depriving the petitioners/accused of sending the subject drug for reanalysis of the drug as specified under Section 25(4) of the Act of 1940.
3. On the other hand, learned HCGP appearing for the respondent-State submits that the subject drug manufactured by the petitioners/accused was of substandard quality, and the learned Magistrate has rightly taken cognizance of the aforesaid offence, and the same does not warrant any interference and sought for dismissal of the petition.
4. I have examined the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
5. The sample of the subject drug was collected on 07.02.2011 and the same was sent to Government Analyst on the very same day. The Government Analyst submitted the report on 09.09.2011 in FORM-13. The Drug Inspector sent a letter enclosing the copy of the report submitted by the Government Analyst but the said letter 4 was returned back on 12.10.2011 stating that the firm was closed, and thereafter the complainant pasted the FORM- 13 on the door of the accused No.1 on 30.1.2013 by which time the shelf life of the subject drug had already expired, thus, depriving the petitioners of their rights to send the subject drug for reanalysis to the Central Drugs Laboratory within 28 days of the receipt of the copy of the report as specified under Section 25(3) of the Act, 1940.
6. A perusal of sub-section 3 of Section 25 of the Act, 1940 specifies that the report of the Government Analyst shall be evidence of the facts stated therein and such evidence shall be conclusive unless the person from whom the sample was taken as within 28 days of the receipt of the report notified in writing, the Inspector or the Court before which any proceeding in respect of the sample are pending that he intends to adduce evidence in controversion of the report.
7. Sub-section 4 of Section 25, of the Act, 1940 makes it abundantly clear that the right to get the sample 5 tested by the Central Government Laboratory through the Court accrues to a person accused in the case, only, if he had earlier notified of his intention under sub-section 3 to adduce evidence in controversion of the report of the Government Analyst.
8. The report submitted by the Government Analyst stating that the subject drug manufactured by the petitioners/accused was of substandard quality is not conclusive proof. The Government Analyst report was served on the accused on 30.1.2013 by pasting it on the door of the accused by which time the shelf life of the drug had expired , and the complaint was also filed after expiry of the shelf life of the subject drug, thus depriving the petitioners of their valuable right to send the subject drug for Analyst to the Central Laboratory as specified under Section 25(4) of the Act of 1940. Hence, cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate is not sustainable in law and continuation of criminal proceedings against the 6 petitioners/accused will be an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER i. Criminal Petition is allowed. ii. The impugned proceedings in SPL.C.C. No.118/2013 on the file of Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE RKA