Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Upendra & Anr vs State on 2 May, 2017
Author: Vijay Bishnoi
Bench: Vijay Bishnoi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision No. 258 / 2002
1. Upendra P. Bhattan, Chemist M/s Gujrat Inject Ltd. Barodra
2. N.J.Vaid, quality Control Chemist, M/s Gujrat Inject Ltd.,
Barodra
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : Mr Kuldeep Mathur
Mr Sidharth karwasra
For Respondent(s) : Mr R.K.Bohra - PP
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Judgment 02/05/2017 This criminal revision petition under section 397/401 CrPC has been filed by the petitioners being aggrieved with the order dated 28.02.2002 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Barmer (for short 'the revisional court' hereinafter) in Cr. Revision No.9/2000, whereby it has quashed the order dated 30.03.2000 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barmer (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter) in Case No.535/1992. The trial court vide order dated 30.03.2000 quashed the complaint preferred against the petitioners by the Drug Inspector, Barmer for the offence punishable under section 27B(1), 17A, 18A(1), 18C, 27D, 22A and 22(3) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (for short 'the Act of 1940' hereinafter) on the ground that the said complaint was filed after a period of limitation i.e. 3 years.
(2 of 4) [CRLR-258/2002] Brief facts of the case are that the Drug Inspector, Barmer filed a complaint before the trial court with the allegation that on 30.06.1988, he inspected M/s Chandra Medical Store situated at Laxmi Bazar, Barmer and collected four samples of A.L.Sodium Chloride and Dextrose Injection I.V., which was manufactured by M/s Gujarat Inject Ltd. Alondra, Tehsil Kalol, District Panch Mahal, Gujarat of which the petitioners were the representatives. It is alleged that the said samples of the drug were sent for chemical examination, however as per the Chemical Examination Report, they did not comply with the test for sterility and, therefore, after necessary compliance of the provisions of the Act, the said complaint was filed against the accused-persons.
The complaint filed by the Drug Inspector was challenged by the petitioners before the trial court while claiming that for the violation of provisions of section 27B(1), 27D and 22(3) of the Act of 1940, the maximum punishment is 3 years, whereas the complaint against them was filed after 3 years and, therefore, cognizance cannot be taken against the petitioners as per the provisions of section 468 CrPC.
It is noticed that the Drug Inspector collected the samples of the drugs on 30.06.1968 and the complaint against the petitioners and other persons was filed by him on 01.12.1992.
Trial court after hearing the counsel for the parties has allowed the application filed by the petitioners and quashed the complaint qua them vide order dated 30.03.2000.
Being aggrieved with the order dated 30.03.2000 the State had filed a revision petition before the revisional court, (3 of 4) [CRLR-258/2002] however, revisional court has allowed the said revision petition while holding that the Drug Inspector came to know about the designation and authorities of the petitioners in respect of the company, which had manufactured the drug, which was found sub-standard, from Gujarat Administration on 09.05.1991 only and, therefore, it cannot be said that the complaint against the petitioners was filed after the period of limitation i.e. three years.
Learned Revisional Court has placed reliance on sub- section (3) of section 469 CrPC and held that the limitation for taking cognizance starts from the date of knowledge of the accused-person and in the present case, the Drug Inspector came to know about the designation and authority of the petitioners only through letter dated 09.05.1991 and in such circumstances, the complaint filed by him on 01.12.1992 is within the period of limitation.
Learned counsels appearing for the petitioners tried to impress that the revisional court was erred in setting aside the order passed by the trial court, however, they have failed to satisfy this Court that the Drug Inspector was aware about the identity and the designation of the petitioners before receiving any information from Gujarat Administration.
It is not in dispute that for the first time the Drug Inspector came to know about the identity, designation and authority of the petitioners only through the letter of Gujarat Administration dated 09.05.1991 and the complaint against the petitioners and other accused-persons before the trial court was filed on 01.12.1992. In such circumstances, it is clear that the (4 of 4) [CRLR-258/2002] complaint against the petitioners was filed within three years and, therefore, the same is within limitation.
In view of the above discussions, I do not find any merit in this revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed.
Record of the trial court be set back forthwith.
(VIJAY BISHNOI)J. m.asif/PS