Karnataka High Court
Mrs. Gagandeep Kaur vs State At The Instance Of Assistant on 4 October, 2016
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 04th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.937 OF 2016
Between:
1. Mrs. Gagandeep Kaur,
Aged about 34 years,
Proprietrix of
M/s. Medwor Pharma
Plot No.140, EPIP,
Phase II, Thana, Baddi,
District Solon - 173 205,
Himachal Pradesh.
2. Amandeep Singh,
Aged about 38 years,
Analytical Chemist of
M/s. Medwor Pharma
Plot No.140, EPIP,
Phase II, Thana, Baddi,
District Solon - 173 205,
Himachal Pradesh. ...Petitioners
(By Shri. Desu Reddy G., Advocate)
And:
State at the Instance of
Assistant Drug Controller - 1,
2
Bangalore Circle - 5,
Drugs Control Department,
Bengaluru - 560 001. ...Respondent
(By Shri. K.R. Keshav Murthy, SPP - II for State)
---
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. praying to quash the entire proceedings in Spl.
C.C.No.280/2015 pending on the file of the Prl. City Civil
and S.J., CCH-1 at Bengaluru.
This Petition coming on for admission this day, the
Court made the following:-
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned State Public Prosecutor.
The petitioner is before this Court in the following circumstances.
It transpires that the first petitioner is the proprietrix of a concern in the name and style of M/s. Medwor Pharma of Thana, Baddi, Solon district, Himachal Pradesh and is engaged in manufacturing and sale of drugs under license and the drug manufactured is AMNAC-P tablets and other tablets. It is claimed that on 18.12.2012 the respondent 3 drug inspector on a routine inspection had drawn 4 x 5 x 10s tablets sample of the Drug AMNAC-P tablets as also other drugs manufactured by the petitioner in Form No.17 for test and analysis. It is stated that on 20.12.2012 the respondent has sent the drugs to the Government Analyst, Regional Drugs Testing Laboratory Hubli, Karnataka for test. It is stated that on 07.02.2013 the respondent received the test report in Form No.13 from the Government Analyst dated 31.01.2013 and it was declared that the drug was "Not of Standard Quality" as it did not confirm to the label claim with respect to the "Assay" for the said drug and the sample was also found to contain 24.47 mg of Diclofenac per tablet, though it is not claimed so. Thereafter the respondent sent the original test report to M/s. ICON Enterprises in Form No.13 and it was also sent to the manufacturer. On 11.06.2015 the respondent had filed the complaint under Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 against the petitioners in Special 4 C.C. No.280/2015 alleging the commission of offences punishable under Section 18(a)(i) of the said Act and punishable under Section 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 on the file of the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. On 17.06.2015 the court took cognizance of the offence and issued summons to the petitioners. Aggrieved by the same the petitioners are before this Court.
It is pointed out that the court below has taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 18(a)(i) read with Section 17A (f) and 27(d) of the Act. This according to the learned counsel was not permissible in view of the fact that after the report was filed into Court the petitioner had filed under Section 25(4) challenging the report which was submitted and thereafter it was sent to the Central Drugs Laboratory, Calcutta which has now furnished a report to state that the drugs were "Not of Standard Quality" in which event it is punishable under 5 Section 27(d) and not under Section 27(b) which is lesser offence and the punishment prescribed is also lesser, in which event the court below would not have jurisdiction to deal with the case and it would have to be remitted to the competent Magistrate before whom it could be tried. This aspect of the matter is completely over looked by the court below and seeks that there be a direction to the court below to deal with the case accordingly. These are the aspects that could be highlighted at the hearing before the court below. Since it is at the stage of evidence before charge and the court below would take note of the glaring circumstances that there was a report by the Central Drugs Laboratory which would prevail over the earlier report in Form No.13 and it is the later certificate in Form No.2 which shall be taken into consideration. In which event the punishment would be under Section 27(b) which is punishable with the imprisonment not extending beyond two years, but not less than one year and therefore the 6 court below would not have jurisdiction to deal with the matter. These aspects may be verified and the court may deal with the case accordingly. The petition is accordingly disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE ykl