Punjab-Haryana High Court
**** vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 9 November, 2012
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
****
CM Nos.14737-38 of 2012 in/and
CWP No.1456 of 2008 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 09.11.2012
****
M/s. City Medicine Centre . . . . Petitioner
VS.
State of Punjab & Ors. . . . . Respondents
****
CORAM
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT
****
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
****
Present: Mr. Shamsher Dhaliwal, Advocate for
Mr. DS Patwalia, Advocate for the petitioner
Dr. Puneet Sekhon, Addl. AG Punjab
****
SURYA KANT,
KANT, J. (ORAL)
CM Nos.14737-38 of 2012 Notice to AG Punjab. Dr. Puneet Sekhon, learned Addl. AG Punjab accepts notice on its behalf.
Document Annexure A1 is taken on record.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the main case is taken on board for final disposal.
CMs stand disposed of.
CWP No.1456 of 2008 (1). The petitioner seeks quashing of the orders dated 25.09.2007 (Annexures P7 & P8) as also the order dated 11.01.2008 (Annexure P10) whereby its Wholesale and Retail Sale Drug Licence CWP No.1456 of 2008 -2- has been suspended/cancelled and its appeal against the said order(s) has also been dismissed by respondent No.2.
(2). The above-stated action has been taken against the petitioner on the basis of inspection held by the District Drugs Inspector, Jalandhar on 06.04.2007 wherein several deficiencies/contraventions under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (in short, 'the Act') and the Rules framed thereunder were found. A show cause notice was given and after considering the petitioner's replies, its licence granted under the Act was firstly suspended and later on cancelled. The impugned order(s) reveal that the photocopies of purchase bills claimed to be of the drugs seized at the time of inspection were found not worthy of reliance and were misleading. Similarly, the explanation given by the petitioner that the medicines meant for "physician samples marked drugs not for sale" were kept for personal use was also rejected. The petitioner preferred a statutory appeal under the Act which was dismissed by the Appellant Authority vide order dated 11.01.2008 (Annexure P10).
(3). The aggrieved petitioner has preferred this writ petition. (4). The petitioner has placed on record the order dated 31.08.2012 (Annexure A1) passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar whereby complaint under Section 18(C) read with Rule 62 and 18-B punishable under Section 27(b)(ii) and Section 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 instituted by the State of Punjab has been dismissed. The petitioner contends that in view of the CWP No.1456 of 2008 -3- exoneration granted by the Criminal Court, its licence deserves to be restored.
(5). I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
(6). The issue whether the illegalities or deficiencies found by the District Drugs Inspector have been annulled/set aside by the Criminal Court is a question of fact to be determined by the competent authority. Similarly, whether in the light of the findings/observations returned by the Criminal Court the petitioner deserves to be inflicted with a lesser punishment is also a question which can be effectively gone into by the competent authority keeping in view the public interest. Moreover, whether the judgement passed by Criminal Court has been accepted and/or the Authorities are inclined to appeal against it, is yet another factor to be kept in view.
(7). Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, I allow the writ petition in part to the extent that the appellate order dated 11.01.2008 (Annexure P10) is set aside, however, without going into the merits of the case and the Appellate Authority is directed to decide the petitioner's appeal afresh taking into consideration the subsequent events including the judgement of the Criminal Court (Annexure A1). These observations, however, shall not be construed or understood as if this Court has accepted the explanation put forth by the petitioner.
CWP No.1456 of 2008 -4-(8). The Appellate Authority shall decide the appeal afresh within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
(9). Ordered accordingly. Dasti.
09.
09.11.2012
11.2012 (SURYA KANT)
vishal shonkar
Judge