Patna High Court - Orders
M/S Brawn Laboratories Lt. Through Brij ... vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 4 July, 2013
Author: Mandhata Singh
Bench: Mandhata Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.23162 of 2011
======================================================
M/S Brawn Laboratories Ltd., New Industrial Township, Faridabad-121001,
represented through Brij Raj Gupta, S/o Sri J.P. Gupta, Managing Director,
M/s Brawn Laboratories Ltd., R/o 767/2, Singh Sabha Road, Sabzi Mandi,
Delhi - 110 007
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar represented through the Principal Secretary,
Department of Health and Services, Bihar, Patna.
2. The Drug Controller, Department of Health and Services, Bihar,
Patna.
3. The Drug Inspector, Chapra (Saran), Bihar.
.... .... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur
Mr. Avinash Kumar
Mr. Ajeet Kumar
For the State : Mr. A.L. Pandit
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANDHATA SINGH
ORAL ORDER
4 04-07-2013Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the state.
This application is filed for quashing the order dated 09.12.2010 passed by learned C.J.M., Saran, Chapra in Complaint Case No. C.G.S. Case No. 158 of 2010, T.R. No. 2402 of 2011.
One of the drugs namely, Metformin Hydrochloride Tablet is found of substandard when the same was tested by the Bihar Drugs Central Laboratories, Patna. Petitioner is manufacturer of the drug, same is collected from drugs store of Civil Surgeon, Chapra. Expiry date of the drug is November, 2009 Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.23162 of 2011 (4) dt.04-07-2013 2 and the report is dated 03.11.2009. Same was handed over (Noticed) on 27.11.2009 to the petitioner. Complaint is filed on 07.12.2010.
Two legal points are raised on behalf of petitioner. First that cognizance is time barred and second that there is no compliance of Section 25(3) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940. Offence for which petitioner is accused is under Section 18(a)(i) read with section 27(d) of the Drugs and cosmetics Act. Under Section 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act minimum and maximum punishment which can be awarded in one and two years. Here maximum is relevant one, which is two years and limitation for filing case for such offences under Section 468 is three years. Admittedly, medicine was collected on 19.07.2007 that is the date of occurrence and F.I.R. is lodged on 07.12.2010. Admittedly, after a period of three years. So, the cognizance is time barred.
Another legal point raised by the petitioner is about giving him no opportunity to controvert the report obtained by him (complainant). Section 25 speaks about giving of such opportunity, if the same is not tested by the Central Drugs Laboratory. Report was challenged by the petitioner but no time was left to be given him opportunity for getting it tested from Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.23162 of 2011 (4) dt.04-07-2013 3 Central Laboratory before expiry of the medicine, as report was submitted to him on 27.11.2009 and expiry date was the last date of November.
On this score also prosecution case is liable to fail. Accordingly, this quashing application is allowed. The order dated 09.12.2010 passed by the learned C.J.M., Saran, Chapra is hereby quashed.
(Mandhata Singh, J.) Shail/-