Bangalore District Court
The Drugs Inspector vs Amruthlal on 23 September, 2016
1 CC.No.1210-2004
BEFORE THE SPECIAL COURT FOR ECONOMIC OFFENCES
AT BANGALORE.
Dated this the 23rd day September 2016
Present: Smt.PUSHPAVATHI V., B.A.L., LL.B.,
Presiding Officer, Special Court
for Economic Offences, Bangalore.
CC.No.1210-2004.
Complainant: The Drugs Inspector, Bangalore Circle-1,
Bangalore.
.Vs.
Accused: Amruthlal,
No.122, Ground Floor, 70th Cross,
5th Block, Rajajinagar, Bangalore.
JUDGEMENT
1. This case has been registered on the basis of the Complaint filed by the Complainant/Drugs Inspector, Bangalore Circle-1, Bangalore u/s.200 of Cr.P.C., against accused for contravention of Sec.18(a)(i) R/w.17B(c), Sec.18(c) & Sec.18A which is punishable u/s.27(c), 27(b)(ii) & 28 of the Drugs & Cosmetic Act, 1940. (herein after referred as "the Act")
2. The brief facts of the complainant's case is as follows:-
The complainant is a Drugs Inspector, appointed U/s.21 of Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940, vide G.O.No.HFW/31/IMM/98, Dated:20.6.1998 & G.O.No.HFW/31/IMM/98, dated:19.8.1998, he is posted as Drugs Inspector, Circle-1, Bangalore, having Jurisdiction for entire Bangalore Urban District as per Government Order No.HFW/62/IMM/2002/(P), dated:23.7.2003. He 1 2 CC.No.1210-2004 is empowered to institute this prosecution u/s.32(1) of the Drugs & Cosmetic Act, 1940.
3. The Chapter-IV of the Act came into effect in Karnataka from 1.4.1957 vide Notification No.LLH/10/MDH/57 dated:22.3.1957 & Sec.18 of the Act came into force with effect from 1.3.1959 vide Notification No.LLH/39/MDR/57 dated:19/12/1958.
4. The accused is said to be the Proprietor of Firms i.e., a) M/s.Sandeep Pharma Pvt., Ltd., which has fictitious address Dr.Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai in which the accused was said to manufacture spurious drugs, b) M/s.J.J.Daga & Co., 21, 11th Cross, Malleswaram, Bangalore in which accused is said to be sold the spurious drugs, c) M/s.Syndicate Pharma, No.122, 70th Cross, Rajajinagar, 5th Block, Bangalore, in which accused said to be purchased the raw materials used for the manufacture of spurious drugs & d) M/s.Anand Chemical Works, Bangalore & the persons in charge of day to day conduct of business of the firm by name M/s.Sandeep Pharma Pvt., Ltd., Bangalore.
5. On 14.07.03 on credible information that Sri.J.Amritlal is manufacturing, stocking & selling huge quality of drugs without valid licences at No.122, 70th Cross, Rajajinagar, Bangalore, the complainant along with Sri.N.Vadivelu, Assistant Drugs Controller, Circle-1, Bangalore, Sri.Sunil A.Patil, Sri.Shankar Jyothi, Drugs Inspectors of Circle-1, Bangalore & Sri.Narayanareddy, Drugs Inspector of Cricle-2, Bangalore and two panch witnesses visited the above said address, on search they found huge 2 3 CC.No.1210-2004 quantity of drugs i.e., Pottasium Permanganate I.P., b) Boric Acid I.P., c) Vaseline (White Petroleum Jelly IP), d) Clove Oil I.P., which are labeled as manufactured by M/s.Sandeep Pharma Pvt., Ltd., Dr.Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai, e) Raw materials, packing materials, Machinery, labels used for the manufacture of the said drugs and documents on raw material etc., on enquiry the accused is informed that he had manufactured/repacked, stocked for sale and sold the above said drugs to different dealers situated in Bangalore i.e., 1)Manu Pharma, 2)Pharma Link, 3)Rajendra Sales Corporation, 4)Subline Drug & 5)Rajesh Pharma, without possessing a valid drugs licence. In this regard, the accused gave statement.
6. The complainant had sampled 6 drugs under Form No.17, for test and analysis and then seized the available stock of drugs raw materials, packing materials, machinery, labels used for the manufacture and documents on raw materials under Form No.16 & Panchanama dated: 14.7.2003 & kept in safe custody obtaining permission of the court.
7. The complainant has submitted the said 6 sampled drugs drawn for test & analysis to the Government Analyst, Karnataka under Form No.18 dated:15.7.2003 as per the provisions of the Act. All the drugs were analyzed and 3 were declared as standard quality and 3 were passed the test conducted.
8. On 25.7.2003 & 26.7.2003 the complainant along with Sri.Narayana Reddy, Drugs Inspector, Circle-2, Bangalore visited M/s.Mahalaxmi Agencies, Bangalore & enquired with Sri.Mohanlal Prajapat, Proprietor of 3 4 CC.No.1210-2004 M/s.Mahalaxmi Agencies, Bangalore & Sri.Muparam Boranna, Proprietor of M/s.Mahalaxmi Pharama, Bangalore got confirmation about the purchase and sale of drugs from accused and recorded the statements.
9. On 29.7.2003, the complainant personally served notice u/s.18A of the Act to the accused calling him to disclose the source of acquisition of the drugs & returned the documents seized on 14.7.2003 to the accused after taking certified copies.
10. On 5.8.2003, the accused replied to the notice u/s.18A of the Act stating that no purchase invoices are available.
11. On 21.8.2003 Sri.Shankar Jyothi, Drugs Inspector, Circle-1, Bangalore during his investigation at M/s.Adhinatha Medicals & General Stores, No.172, Shivaji Road, Shivajinagar, Bangalore under Form No.16 & mahazar seized the drugs a) 11x20 gms of Boric Acid I.P., labeled as B.No.666, D/M:1/02, mfd., in the name of M/s.Sandeep Pharma Pvt., Ltd., Dr.Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai, b) 1x100 gms of Boric Acid I.P., labeled as B.No.673, D/M:10/02, mfd., in the name of M/s.Sandeep Pharma Pvt., Ltd., Dr.Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai & c) 1x400 gms of Boric Acid I.P., labeled as B.No.MS070311, D/M:7/03, mfd., in the name of M/s.Sandeep Pharma Pvt., Ltd., Dr.Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai which were manufactured and supplied by accused and the same were seized under Form No.16 from the premises of M/s.Adhinatha Medicals, Bangalore.
4 5 CC.No.1210-2004
12. On 28.8.2003 he received the reply from the Proprietor of M/s.Adhinatha Medicals, Banglaore to the notice served by him on 23.08.2003 along with the purchase invoices bearing No.B25039, dated:13.8.2003, 110433, dated:27.2.2003, 638, dated:19.7.2003, 5184, dated:26.9.2002, 22754, dated:23.6.2003.
13. On 30.8.2003 he received a statement letter from Sri.Premraj, Proprietor of M/s.Pravesh Pharma, No.125, 2nd Floor, Sulthanpet, Bangalore.
14. On 10.9.2003, the complainant has taken a statement from Smt.Manjula, who is the landlord of building bearing No.122, 70th Cross, 5th Block, Rajajinagar, Bangalore.
15. On 10.9.2003 the complainant along with Sri.Narayana Reddy, Drugs Inspector, Circle-2, Bangalore visited M/s.Manu Pharma, Bangalore & enquired with Sri.K.N.Udayakumar, Proprietor of M/s.Manu Pharma, Bangalore about the purchase and sale of Boric Acid & Potassium Permanganate from accused and recorded a statement.
16. On 10.9.2003 they visited M/s.Rajesh Pharmaceuticals, Bangalore and enquired with Rajesh, Proprietor of M/s.Rajesh Pharmaceuticals, Bangalore about the purchase and sale of drugs from accused & received a statement along with purchase invoices bearing Nos.8007, dated:8.2.2003, 6833, dated:3.7.2001, 7583, dated:6.7.2002, 7491, dated:.20.5.2002, 7921, dated:25.12.2002, 7769, dated:9.10.2002, 7839, dated:14.11.2002, 7779, dated:14.10.2002, 7787, dated:18.10.2002, 7795, dated:22.10.2002. 5 6 CC.No.1210-2004
17. On 19.9.2003, the complainant received a statement from Sri.Premraj, Proprietor of M/s.Pravesh Pharma, Banglaore with copies of purchase invoices, bearing No.7702 dated:24.9.2002 in connection to the sale of drugs to M/s.Adhinatha Medicals & General Stores, Bangalore.
18. On 13.10.2003 Sri.Shankar Jyothi, received a statement from Sri.Hansraj, Proprietor of M/s.Adhinatha Medicals & General Stores, Bangalore.
19. On 29.11.2003, 18.11.2003, 10.9.2003 & 8.1.2004, the complainant received the test reports from the Drugs Testing Laboratory, Bangalore for the drugs which was sampled under Form No.17, dated:14.7.2003 from the premises of accused.
20. On 24.3.2004, the complainant visited M/s.Raj Lubricants (Madras) Ltd., Chennai, enquired and taken statement as to the supply of raw materials to accused. Further, the complainant received letter from the Joint Commissioner, Food & Drugs Administration, Mumbai through the Drugs Controller for the State of Karnataka stating that the firm M/s.Sandeep Pharma Pvt., Ltd., do not exist in Mumbai with licence.
21. On 30.3.2004 the complainant received a letter from Sri.Vadivelu, Assistant Drugs Controller, Circle & licensing authority for confirming that the following firms do not hold a valid licenses i.e., a) M/s.J.J.Daga & Co., Bangalore, b)M/s.Anand Chemical Works, Bangalore & c)M/s.Syndicate Pharma, Bangalore. Further, complainant Sri.C.Kumar, Drugs Inspector, Circle-1 received the documents from Shankar Jyothi, Drugs Inspector, 6 7 CC.No.1210-2004 Circle-1 connected to the investigation on seizer of drugs from M/s.Adhinatha Medicals & General Stores, Bangalore.
22. On 5.4.2004 the complainant has taken a statement letter from the Manager of Karnataka Bank Ltd., City Market, Bangalore for clearance of cheques issued by M/s.Manu Pharma, Bangalore. Further, he has taken a statement letter from the Manager of City Union Bank Ltd., Sulthan Pet, Bangalore for confirming the accused having a current account bearing No.1957 in the name of M/s.J.J.Daga & Co., Malleshwaram, Bangalore & Current Account No.3147 in the name of M/s.Anand Chemicals, Malleswaram, Bangalore, the complainant has personally delivered all the 6 test reports to accused under acknowledgement. The complainant has taken a statement letter from accused confirming that he is the sole proprietor of M/s.J.J.Daga & Co., Malleswaram, Bangalore and also repacking the drugs by him in the name of M/s.Sandeep Pharma, Mumbai.
23. On 6.4.2004 the complainant has taken a statement from the Manager of Tamilnadu Mercentile Bank Ltd., Bangalore for the clearance of cheques issued by M/s.Pravesh Pharma, Bangalore.
24. Hence, on 15.7.2003, 22.3.2004 & 8.4.2004, the complainant submitted his report to the Drugs Controller for the State of Karnataka, Bangalore about his investigation vide letter No.DCD/ADCA/BNG-1/266/2000-01, dated:6.10.2000 and sought permission to prosecute against the said accused person. The Drugs Controller for State of Karnataka Bangalore vide letter No.DCD/90/LIP/2003-04, dated:11.05.2004 gave permission to 7 8 CC.No.1210-2004 initiate prosecution, as such the complainant has filed this complaint against accused for contravention of Sec.18(a)(i) R/w.17B(c), Sec.18(c) & Sec.18A which are punishable u/s.27(c), 27(b)(ii) & 28 of the Drugs & Cosmetic Act, 1940 & hence, the complaint is filed. With these grounds prays to punish the accused for the offence said above.
25. On received this complaint, cognizance taken, registered the case, secured accused, enlarged on bail. Copies of the complaint and other documents were furnished to him. After hearing both sides, the evidence before charge was framed against the accused for the offences punishable u/s.27(c), 27(b)(ii) & 28 of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940, wherein, he has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the matter was posted for complainant's evidence where the complainant has examined as many as 13 witnesses i.e., P.w.1 to 13 and got marked Ex.p.1 to 109 & Mos.1 to 53 and closed their evidence. P.w.1 to 13 have been cross- examined by the accused counsel. On completion of prosecution evidence, the matter was posted for recording the statement of accused u/s.313 of Cr.P.C., where accused has denied incriminatory evidence read over and explained to him in the language known to him & submitted that he has got no evidence & nothing to say, he did not choose to lead any defence evidence, hence the matter was posted for arguments.
26. Thereafter, heard the arguments. Perused the entire records, the points that arise for my consideration are :
Point No.1: Whether the complainant proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused being the Proprietor and the person in charge of day to day conduct of business of Firm by name M/s.Sandeep Pharma Pvt., Ltd., Bangalore, on 14.07.03 8 9 CC.No.1210-2004 stocking & selling spurious drugs i.e., a)Potassium Permanganate I.P., b)Boric Acid I.P., c) Vaseline (White Petroleum Jelly I.P), d)Clove Oil I.P., which are labeled as manufactured by M/s.Sandeep Pharma Pvt., Ltd., which is a fictitious firm situated at fictitious address Dr.Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai, e)Raw materials, packing materials, Machinery, labels used for the manufacture of the said drugs and documents on raw material etc., & thereby violated Sec.18(a)(i) r/w.S.17B(c) & committed the offence punishable u/s.27(c) of Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940.?
Point No.2: Whether the complainant further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused being the Proprietor and the person in charge of day to day conduct of business and manufacturing the drugs above said without valid licence and thereby the accused has committed an offence u/s.18© which is punishable u/s.27(b)(ii) of Drugs & Cosmetic Act, 1940.?
Point No.3: Whether the complainant further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that accused has failed to reply satisfactorily to the notice issued U/s.18A of the Act, dated:29.7.2003 as to source of acquisition of drugs i.e., i)1-Bag of Boric Acid I.P., ii)3x25 liters liquid paraffin I.P., & iii)One drum of Potassium Permanganate & thereby violation of S.18-A of Drugs & Cosmetic Act & committed the offence punishable u/s.28-A of Drugs & Cosmetic Act, 1940.?
Point No.4: What order.?
27. My findings on the above said points are as under:
Point No.1: In the Affirmative, Point No.2: In the Affirmative, Point No.3: In the Negative, Point No.4: As per the Final orders for the following:
REASONS
28. Points No.1 & 2: P.w.1 Sri.Kumar ADC, Mandya in his chief examination has stated that he worked as Drugs Inspector, Bangalore Circle between 20.6.1998 to 2004, he appointed as an Inspector to Bangalore Circle-1, Bangalore U/sec.21 of D & C Act, 1940 as per Government order 9 10 CC.No.1210-2004 No.HFW/31/IMM/ 98, dated:20.6.1998 as per Ex.P.1 and Government order Notification No.HFW/31/IMM/98 dated:19/8/1998. The Chapter -IV of D & C Act, 1940 came into effect in Karnataka from 1st April-1957 vide Notification No.LLH/10/MDH/57, dated: 22/3/1957 Mysore Gazette Notification is at Ex.P.2. As per the Government order No.HFW/62/IMM/2002 (P), dated:23/7/03 Ex.P.3, he has got jurisdiction, the relevant entry is at Ex.P.3(a). On 14/7/2003 he along with Sri.N.Vadivelu the then ADC and Sri.Sunil A.Patil, D.I., Mr.Shankar Jyothi D.I. who were all working in Circle-1 and Mr.Narayana Reddy D.I., Bangalore Circle-2 came to residence of accused-K.Amruthlal's residence No.122, Ground Floor, 70th Cross, Rajajnagar, 5th Block, Bangalore-10 along with the panch witnesses by name Mr.Narasimhamurthy B.N., 24 years and Mr.B.M.Harisha, 22 years, the accused was present during their visit, they searched the premises and found the drugs-(a) Potassium permanganate-IP, (b)Boric Acid- IP (c)Vaseline (White petroleum jelly I.P.) (d)Clove oil I.P. which were labeled as manufactured by M/s.Sandeep Pharma Pvt. Ltd., Dr.Annie Beasant Road, Worli Mumbai-400018. (e)raw materials, packing materials, machineries, labels used for the manufacture of the said drugs and documents of the raw-materials etc., the accused informed that they have manufactured and repacked those drugs without licence and sold them to different dealers situated at Bangalore-53 i.e., 1)M/s.Manu Pharma
2)M/s.Pharma link, 3)M/s.Rajendra Sales Corporation, 4)M/s.Sub-lime Durgs and 5)M/s.Rajesh Pharma, he has also obtained the statement from 10 11 CC.No.1210-2004 the accused, they have also sampled 6 drugs under Form-17 for test and analysis as per Ex.P.15 and he has paid Rs.1172/- towards the sample drawn as per cash bill Ex.P.16, he seized the remaining available stocks of drugs, raw-materials, packing materials, machinery and labels used for the manufacture and documents on raw-materials under Form-16 (4 in number) as per Ex.P.17 to 20 and panchanama as per Ex.P.21 both dated:14/7/2003, he recorded statement of accused as per Ex.P.22.
29. P.w.1 has further stated that on 14/7/2003 he had complained to the police Inspector, Magadi Road P.S. Bangalore-23 as per Ex.P.4, same has been registered vide FIR No.0244, dated:14/7/03 as per Ex.P.5. On 15/7/03 he submitted 6 sampled drugs drawn for test and analysis to the Government Analyst, Karnataka under Form-18, dated:15/7/03 as per the provision of the Act, all the drugs were analyzed and 3 were declared as not of Standard Quality and 3 standard quality as per Ex.P.7 to P.12. On 25/7/2003, he along with Sri.Narayanareddy, D.I. Bangalore Circle-2 visited M/s.Mahalakshmi Agency, Bangalore-53 and enquired with Mr.Mohanlal Prajapet, Proprietor that as to purchase and sale of drugs from the accused and recorded his statement as per Ex.P.13. On 26/7/2003 he along with Sri.Narayanareddy, D.I., Bangalore circle-2 visited M/s.Mahalakshmi Pharma, Bangalore-53 and enquired with Mr.Muparam Boranna, Proprietor about the purchase and sale of drugs from the accused and recorded his statement as per Ex.P.14. On 29.7.2003, he personally served a notice U/s.18A to accused as per Ex.P.23. On 29.7.03, he returned back the 11 12 CC.No.1210-2004 documents seized on 14.7.03 to accused after taking certified xerox copies, the statement of accused is also received from the accused, the covering letter is at Ex.P.24, the purchase invoices are at Ex.P.25 & P.26. On 5.8.2003, he received the reply to the notice u/s.18A from accused as per Ex.p.27 stating that no purchase invoice is available. On 10.9.2003, he has taken a statement from Smt.Manjula who is the landlord of the building bearing No.122, 70th cross, 5th Block, Rajajinagar, Bangalore-10 as per Ex.p.28. On 10.9.2003, he along with Sri.Narayana Reddy, the then Drugs Inspector, Bangalore Circle-II visited M/s.Manu Pharma, Bangalore-53 and enquried with Sri.K.N.Udaya Kumar who is the proprietor and enquired regarding the purchase and sale of Boric acid and Potassium permanganate from accused and recorded his statement as per Ex.P.29 & he has taken the invoices as per Ex.P.30 and Ex.P.31.
30. P.w.1 has further stated that on 10.9.2003 he along with Sri.Narayana Reddy, the then D.I., Bangalore circle-II visited M/s.Rajesh Pharmaceuticals, Bangaloe-53 and enquried with Sri.Rajesh who is the proprietor and enquired regarding the purchase and sale of drugs from accused and received the statement as per Ex.p.32 along with purchase invoices as per Ex.P.33 to P.42. On 19.9.2003, he along with Sri.Shankar Jyothi, the then D.I., Bangalore circle-1 and Sri.Narayana Reddy, the then D.I., Bangalore circle-II received a statement as per Ex.p.43 from Sri.Premraj, Proprietor of M/s.Pravesh Pharma, Bangalore-53 with the copies of purchase invoices as per Ex.P.44. On 29.11.03 (2 reports), 12 13 CC.No.1210-2004 18.11.03, 10.9.03 and 8.1.2004 (2 reports) he received the 6-test reports from the Drugs Testing Laboratory, Bangalore for the drugs which was sampled under Form-17, dated:14.7.03 from the premises of accused as per Ex.P.45 to Ex.P.50. The test reports are personally served to the accused and acknowledged the same. On 24.3.2004, he visited M/s.Raj Lubricants, Chennai and enquired with Mr.Viren .B Nanavathi, Director for the supply of raw-materials supplied to accused as per Ex.p.51 statement & invoice Ex.P.52. On the same day, he received the letter from the Joint Commissioner, Food & Drug Administration, Mumbai through the Drugs Controller for the State of Karnataka stating that the firm M/s.Sandeep Pharma Pvt. Ltd., do not exist in Mumbai with licence, the covering letter is at Ex.P.53. On 30.3.2004 he received a letter from Sri.N.Vadivelu, the then ADC, Bangalore Circle-1 and licensing authority for confirming that the following firms do not hold the valid drug licence i.e., 1)M/s.J.J Daga & Co.,
2)M/s.Anand Chemical Works & 3)M/s.Syndicate Pharma as per the letter Ex.P.54. On the same day, he received the documents from Sri.Shankar Jyothi, the then D.I., Circle-1 connected to the investigation and seizure of drugs from M/s.Adinath Medical and General Stores, Bangalore-51 as per the covering letter Ex.P.55. He has collected documents i.e., the Form-16, Panchanama, another panchanama, the court permission letter, the statement of Proprietor of M/s.Adinath Medical and General stores as per Ex.p.56 to 60, the invoices are as per Ex.P.61 to P.65, the letter of Mr.Premraj as at Ex.P.66. On 5.4.2004, he has taken statement of 13 14 CC.No.1210-2004 Manager, Karnataka Bank, Bangalore for clearance of cheque issued by Manu Pharma, Bangalore-53 as per Ex.P.67, attested copies of the cheques are at Ex.P.68 & 69. On 5.4.2004, he has taken the statement from the Manager of City Union Bank Ltd., Sulthanpet, Bangalore-53 as per Ex.p.70 for confirming Sri.Amruthlal having current account bearing No.1957 in the name of M/s.J.J.Daga & Co., Malleswaram, Bangalore-03 and Current A/c No.3147 in the name of M/s.Anand Chemical work, Malleswaram, Bangalore-03. On 5.4.2004, he has personally delivered all the six-test report to accused with acknowledgment. On 5.4.2004 he has taken the statement from accused as per Ex.p.71 where confirmed that he is the sole proprietor of M/s.K.J.Daga & Co., Malleswaram, Bangalore-03 and also about repacking the drugs in the name of M/s.Sandeep Pharma, Dr.Anibasent Road, worly, Mumbai. On 6-4-2004, he has taken a statement from the Manager, Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank Ltd., Bangalore-09 as per Ex.p.72 for the clearance of Cheques issued by M/s.Pravesh Pharma, Bangalore-53, attested copy of cheques are at Ex.P.73 & 74. On 15.7.03, 22.3.04 & 8.4.04, he has submitted the report to the Drugs Controller for the State of Karnataka, Bangalore of the investigation carried out vide letter No.DCD/ADCA/ BNG-266 dated:15.7.03, the letters are at Ex.P.75 to 77. The Drugs Controller for the State of Karnataka, Bangalore has permitted him to file the complaint vide letter No.DCD/90/LIP/2003-04 dated:11.5.2004 as per Sanction order Ex.P.78. All the drugs seized on 14.7.2003 from the premises of accused Bangalore-10 are drugs with in the meaning of 14 15 CC.No.1210-2004 Sec.3(b) of the Drugs & Cosmetic Act, 1940, he submit that accused- Amruthlal has violated sec.18(a)(i) r/w.sec.17B(c),18(c) & Sec.18 which are punishable u/s 27(c), 27(b)(ii) & 28 of Drugs & Cosmetic Act, 1940 & hence, he has filed complaint as per Ex.P.79.
31. P.w.1 has further stated that he has drawn M.O.'s according to Form No.17 dated:14.7.2003 as legal samples i.e.,
1. 2 packets of clove oil IP B.No.556 6 ml. D/M.9-02, they are marked as M.O.1 & 2.
2. 2 x 12 x 20 gms., of Pottassium Permanganate IP B.No.358, D/M.5/03. It is marked as M.O.3 & 4.
3. 2 x 1 x 400 gms., Boric Acid IP, B.No.565, repacked on 6/03. It is marked as M.O.5 & 6.
4. 2 x 12 x20 gms., of Boric Acid IP, B.No.565 repacked on 5/03. It is marked as M.O.7 & 8.
5. 2 x 12 x 25 gms., of Vaseline (White Petroleum Jelly IP) B.No.556 repacked on 12/02. It is marked as M.O.9 & 10.
6. 2 x 12 x 20 gms., of Glycerin IP, B.No.565 D/M.5/03. It is marked as M.O.11 & 12.
32. P.w.1 has further stated that on 30.3.04 he issued letter as per Ex.p.83 to Manager, Mercntice Bank, Tamil Nadu, for confirmation of payment made by Amruthlal to J.J.Daga and Co., on the same day, he issued letter to Karnataka Bank, City Market Brach, Bangalore for confirmation of payment made by Amruthlal to J.J.Daga and Co., as per the letter Ex.P.84. On 29.3.2004 he issued letter to Manager, City Union Bank, Sultanpet, Bangalore to furnish copy of statement of accused as per the letter Ex.P.85. On 5.4.2004 he recorded statement of accused-J.Amruthlal as per Ex.P.86. On 7.4.2004, the D.C. issued letter to complete investigation and seek permission to launch the prosecution as per the permission letter Ex.P.87. On 30.10.03 the then D.I. Sri.Shankar Jyothi has recorded the statement of 15 16 CC.No.1210-2004 V.Hansraj, Proprietor, Shree.Adinath Medical and General Stores, Bangalore as per Ex.p.88 and seized certain drugs and handed over to him.
33. P.w.1 has further stated that the properties seized are bulk in nature, hence photographs are produced along with list of drugs seized as per the photographs Ex.P.89 to Ex.P.109 i.e.,
1) 78x12x20gms of Potassium permanganate I.P., B.No.358, repacked by M/s.Sandeep Pharma Pvt. Ltd., M/D:5/03, D/E:Use within36months from the date of packing which is marked as Mo.13.
2) Boric Acid I.P. 100gms 12x100gms XIIunits, B.No.565, M/D:7/03, D/E:use within 24months from date of packing, Mfd. By M/s.Sandeep pharma pvt. Ltd., Mumbai-18 which is marked as Mo.14.
3) Boric Acid I.P. 400gms 15x100gms, B.No.565, M/D:7/03, D/E:use within 24months from date of packing, Mfd. By M/s.Sandeep pharma pvt. Ltd., Mumbai-18 which is marked as Mo.15.
4) Boric Acid I.P. 20gms 20xgmsx12x2, B.No.565, M/D:5/03, D/E:use within 24months from date of packing, which is marked as Mo.16.
5) Vaseline, white petroleum Jelly I.P. 12x25gms x43, B.No.556, M/D:12/02, D/E:use within 48 months. Mgd by: Sandeep Pharma, Mumbai-18 which is marked as Mo.17.
6) 5x12x6ml of clove oil I.P. B.No.556, M/D:9/02, D/E:use within 48 months. Mgd by: Sandeep Pharma, Mumbai-18 which is marked as Mo.18.
7) 25gmx12x32 vaseline white petroleum jelly, I.P. B.No.556, M/D:12/02, D/E:use within 48 months. Mgd by: Sandeep Pharma, Mumbai-18 which is marked as Mo.19.
8) 40gmx12x28units vaseline white petroleum jelly, I.P. B.No.556, M/D:12/02, D/E:use within 48 months. Mgd by: Sandeep Pharma, Mumbai-18 which is marked as Mo.20.
9) Empty cartoons of boxes, stickers and labels are marked as Mo.21.
10) Plastic carry bag containing boric acid powder is marked as Mo.22, which is taken out from the seized plastic gunny bag containing boric acid powder shown in photographs.
11) 35 lts, plastic can containing liquid paraffin I.P. in 3 container. It is not containing manufacturer name and Batch No. and Date of manufacture which is produced through photographs.
12) A small plastic cover containing empty cartoon boxes of boric acid is produced which is taken out from the plastic gunny bags-2Nos., which the photograph of it is produced. The cartoon boxes are marked as Mo.23.
13) One box containing rubber seals which is marked as Mo.24.
14) One steel drum with lid which is produced through photographs.
15) One labeling machine manual operated which is produced through photographs.
16) One manual capping machine which is produced through photographs.
17) Two electric sealing machine which is produced through photographs.
18) Plastic bag containing filed Vaseline container without label which is marked as Mo.24.
19) Plastic bag containing bottle caps of yellow & silver colour which is marked as Mo.25.
20) A small plastic cover containing potassium permanganate of BP grade Mfd., by Carus Chemicals company USA without B.No. taken out from one drum 16 17 CC.No.1210-2004 which is produced through photographs. The sample powder is marked as Mo.26.
21) The small cover containing empty glycerin bottles taken out from plastic bag which is produced in photographs. The empty glycerin bottle is marked as Mo.27.
22) 2 box containing boric acid which is produced through photographs. Small portion is produced and it is marked as Mo.28.
23) One box containing Potassium permanganate outer covering package which is shown in photographs. The small sample portion is produced and it is marked as Mo.29.
24) One box containing Vaseline labels which is produced through photographs.
The sample of it is produced and it is marked as Mo.30.
25) 17plastic gunny bags containing empty Vaseline containers produced through photographs. The sample of it is produced and it is marked as Mo.31.
26) 2 box containing Boric Acid-400gm I.P. outer cover packing is produced through photographs. The sample of it is produced and it is marked as Mo.32.
27) One box containing outer covering packing containing Boric Acid I.P. 20gms produced through photographs. The sample of it is produced and it is marked as Mo.33.
28) One plastic bag containing white wax without label is produced through photographs. The sample of it is produced and it is marked as Mo.34.
29) 2 carton cutter and one label cutter is produced through photographs. One cutter is produced and it is marked as Mo.35.
30) 2 box containing Zinc Oxide I.P. 1000gm each, B.No.133, Mfd. By M/s.Sandeep Pharma Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai-18 is produced through photographs. The sample of it is produced and it is marked as Mo.36.
31) One weighing (table balance) along with its units 100gm, 200gm, 500gm & 1Kg is produced through photographs and produced before court and it is marked as Mo.37.
32) One small Aluminium box containing printing letter blocks with printing ink is produced through photographs and produced before court and it is marked as Mo.38.
33) One plastic measuring jar is produced through photographs and produced before court and it is marked as Mo.39.
th
34) One blank bill book of (M/s.J.J.Daga & Co., No.21, 11 cross, Malleshwaram, Bangalore-03) and it is marked as Mo.40.
35) Raj lubricant (Madras) Ltd., dtd:5.11.2001 is certificate of analysis for White Petroleum Jelly I.P. as per Ex.P.26.
34. During cross-examination of P.w.1, he has stated that there were 3 Inspectors including him during 2003 at Bangalore Circle-1, each Inspector having area wise jurisdiction, his jurisdiction was over Rajajinagar Area, Mr.Shankar Jyothi, Mr.Sunil Patil and himself were in Circle-1, he has produced area wise notification. Mr.Sunil Patil was having Vidyaraynapura and other Zone, Shankar Jyothi had jurisdiction over Shivajinagar, on 14.7.2003 including him 5 persons went to the resident of accused, he do 17 18 CC.No.1210-2004 not remember Door No., Six Rooms were there, the accused wife and children were there as inmates, by the side of house of accused, there are neighbouring houses, as mentioned in Form-16 in Rajajinagar area the accused address is there, he has not called neighbouring witness, the panch witnesses were there, the panch witnesses are closed to the area of accused, he has not called the local witnesses of the same locality, he do not remember the number of the neighbouring houses, he do not remember whether he had seen any trade name in the house, he has seized the materials in all most all the rooms, they had searched in bed room but nothing found. Again witness says may be few, he do not remember whether any drug materials were available in kitchen, drawn the panchanama and Form-16 simultaneously, he has drawn the sample also at the same time, he has mentioned that the drugs are seized in the house of the accused and not specifically stated about the drugs seized in each room, they asked the wife and inmates of the house to sign the panchanama. She refused but they have not endorsed her refusal in the panchanama, he has not taken any photograph of the drugs seized in the house, he has seen the label contents of the seized drugs, they have mentioned the names of the drugs, not all the label contention of the drugs in panchanama, the total number of drugs and materials seized is as per Form-16 are 35, he has mentioned names of raw-materials in mahazar, he cannot segregate and say the manufactured drugs found in the house of accused since there were raw-materials, the few finished drugs were kept in 18 19 CC.No.1210-2004 the boxes and some were unpacked, some were on the floor, he has not specifically mentioned the finished products, unpacked materials, raw materials & materials found on the floor in panchanama, after seizure they have put the materials in the carton boxes and packed with the seal, the carton boxes were not sealed but the drugs were seized and sealed, the 35 items were packed properly and seized, machinery is not sealed, as it was not possible and other items were packed and sealed, he has seen punching machine, one steel drum, one labeling machine, one Manual capping machine, two electric sealing machine, but he has not seen any trade name, manufactured name on the machines at the time of panchanama, in weighing balance (machine) it was written that - "to weight 1Kg" in English and Hindi, but it is not mentioned in mahazar, in 500gms weighing unit 'SHFW' is not mentioned in mahazar, on Mo.32 box "Vijay" is not mentioned in mahazar, the words and names found on the machines or weights are not mentioned in panchanama, the O.K, lotus mark is there on Mo.38 ink box is not mentioned in panchanama, he do not remember how many rubber seals were seized, the contents of rubber seal is not mentioned in panchanama, they have put I.D slip on the materials where ever possible, but not on all the materials, he is not specifically mentioned in the panchanama as to the materials objects on which the I.D slips affixed.
35. During further cross-examination of P.w.1, he has stated that on the seized drugs he has not affixed I.D slips but directly sealed and signed, on seized drugs, himself, accused and the persons accompanied him have signed, on 19 20 CC.No.1210-2004 seized drugs he has packed and tied and affixed with metal seal on the wax seal, where ever possible, on Mo.15 & 16 the signatures are not seen, witness say due to plastic cover it might have erased, he do not remember in how many plastic covers drugs were seized, Mo.6 is the sampled drugs under Form-17 and the Mo.15,16 & 17 are the seized drugs under Form-16, hence Mo.6 contains signature, but Mo.15 to 17 does not contain signature, he has packed the seized drugs in the gunny bags and plastic containers, Mos.17 & 20 Vaseline plastic wrapped packs do not have signatures, the packed covers are not produced, Mo.13 plastic wrapped potassium permanganate do not have any signatures, Mo.14 Boric acid, plastic wrapped does not have any signatures, on Mo.21 & 32 labeling stickers and empty carton boxes do not have any ID slips or signatures, all the labels contents are not mentioned in the mahazar, on Mo.40 invoice book, no signatures made, the silver and gold coloured caps are not specifically mentioned in mahazar, the total number of metal caps of silver and gold caps are not mentioned, there is empty Vaseline boxes (container), the total number of empty containers and number of big and small containers is not mentioned in panchanama, the total number of plastic bottles (Mo.27) is not mentioned in mahazar, the contents of labeling stickers Mo.30 & 33 are not mentioned in panchanama and no signatures are forthcoming, he don't know the total number of empty polythene bags seized, the quantity of powder (Mo.36) is not mentioned in panchanama, Mo.39 is the plastic measuring Jug (1lts) is not mentioned in mahazar and its seizure is not 20 21 CC.No.1210-2004 mentioned, Mo.35 - carton cutting and shaping frame is not mentioned in panchanama, some of the materials seized are not mentioned in panchanama, he has entered the house of accused at 5.15 p.m., he do not remember at what time they started to write mahazar and closed, he do not remember when he started to write Form-16 and closed, he has drawn Form-17 and 16 simultaneously, he paid the amount while taking samples, he did not claim the said amount in his office because it is allotted money given and there is an account in the office, for taking that amount he has not produced the entry of the document, at the time of drawing the legal sample drugs punch witnesses were present, he do not remember whether the signatures of panchas are obtained in Form-17, after seeing the document he say the panchas are signed.
36. During further cross-examination of P.w.1, he has stated that on 14.7.2003 including him 5 persons went to the house premises of accused, Manjunath and Narasimhamurthy are residing in Rajajinagar and Manjunathanagar, he went to the residence of the accused at No.122, Ground Floor, 70th Cross, Rajajinagar 5th Block, Bangalore. He do not know Manjunathanagar is not in the same locality, Smt.Manjula is the landlord of the building of the premises where the accused was residing, he do not remember the time of visit to the accused premises, there are residential neighbouring houses, he has not called neighbouring residence as witness while his visit to the accused premises. At the time of his visit Smt.Manjula was not present, he don't know Smt.Manjula is residing at the same premises in the upstairs, he has 21 22 CC.No.1210-2004 not taken steps to get the witnesses from the upstairs residence, inmates of accused premises his wife and children were there at the time of visit, the premises contains 6 rooms, he has conducted search in all the rooms including kitchen, toilet, in almost all 6 rooms, the drugs and material objects were kept, in mahazar they have stated in all the 6 rooms the material objects were kept and the same is seized, he has not specifically mentioned room No.1, 2 etc., the room measurement is 10x12 approximately as they are not measured, they have seized the material objects from the cupboard, he has not collected the lease agreement or rental agreement of accused premises, he has not collected any rental receipt for the accused, he has not collected any document to show accused is residing in the said house, he do not remember the time of panchanama, witness voluntaries in the statement he has given timings, he has done the Form-16, simultaneously panchanama and Form-16 are written, the sample drugs sampled are declared as standard quality, the quantity of potassium permanganate seized is mentioned in Form-16, Form-16 Ex.P.17 as per it quantity of potassium permanganate mentioned is 78x12x20gms powder, after seizure, he has given police complaint, immediately after giving complaint the police arrested and taken accused to Police station, police have not taken any statement of accused in front of him.
37. During further cross-examination of P.w.1, he has stated that they have mentioned all the materials facts batch number, name of the drugs etc in Form-16, on Mo.13, the Repacking Lic.No.664B is not noted in Form-16, 22 23 CC.No.1210-2004 witness voluntaries that as in his view it is not required, the 5 2003 on the bottom of Mo.13 is not mentioned, he don't know what is 5 2003, on Mo.13 nobody has signed, it is not wrapped with thread and wax sealed, on Mo.14 date of expiry use within 24 months from the date of packing is mentioned, repacking Lic.No.664B is not mentioned in mahazar, on Mo.14 also nobody have signed, all the drugs seized in question are having labels contentions, all the contents of the labels of Mos. seized are not mentioned in mahazar, he has not seen any stock register book, he has not having stock register books as such he has not seen, he has not seen invoice bills, purchase bills, purchase of raw-materials documents in the premises of accused, he has seen finished and raw-materials in the premises, he has not seen the any documents for selling of the finished or raw-materials for some other persons, he has received 6 Form-13 connected to this case, the drugs sent for analysis, three reported to be "standard quality" and rest of three reported "not of standard quality", he has taken four portion of sample drugs, the drugs are taken in random while sampling, in Form-17 panchas were not signed, the accused and himself were there while taking sample, Mo.8 does not contain signature, witness voluntaries that 8 years elapsed it might be erased, in some other Mos. the signatures are there, on Mo.5 legal sample, one Mr.Narasimha Murthy and Harisha have signed, on Mo.5 accused signature is there and he has not signed, in Mo.6 his signature is not there, it is not necessary to sign by himself and from whom the sample is taken, on Mo.3 nobody had signed, on Mos.1, 2, 11 &12 his signature is 23 24 CC.No.1210-2004 not there, on Mo.9 & 10 nobody have signed, they are not taken any steps to challenge Form-13. Ex.P.47 to 49 and sent sample to CDL, Kolkata, on the same day of seizure sampling he has not taken statement of accused, he has given police complaint, the case is registered, simultaneously they seized the drugs and gave the complaint at P.S., the police were there at the time of seizure and drawing of panchanama, the Police officer or constable has not signed the panchanama, he do not know whether police have taken any steps, on 25/7/2003, he has visited Mahalakshmi Agencies situated at Sultanpet, Bangalore-53. The statement is received from the proprietor of this firm as to the receipt of drugs from the accused, both companies purchased drugs from the accused, in both Ex.P.13 & 14 the details of the drugs purchased are not mentioned, at the time of drawing panchanama he has not called any neighbouring witness, the witnesses who have signed are of same locality, the persons who have signed panchanam have signed on the statement of accused as per Ex.P.22, it is stated in accused statement that he has manufactured drugs without licence, in Ex.P.22 the fact that accused manufactured and sold the drugs without licence is not mentioned, he has disclosed from whom he has purchased raw-materials and sold the drugs, the accused accepted that he is proprietor of 4 to 5 companies i.e., J.J. Daga & Co., Anand Chemicals, Syndicate Pharma and Sandeep Pharma, he has not specifically mentioned in panchanama in detail as to drugs manufactured by Companies of accused, as same raw materials also, he has not mentioned 4-5 Companies 24 25 CC.No.1210-2004 in panchanama, the accused has not stated in statement that he is Proprietor of 5 Companies, in statement that he has accepted that he is the sole Proprietor of said Companies, M/s.Sandeep Pharma's address is Dr.Annie Besant Road, Mumbai, M/s.JJ Dag & Co., is at Malleshwaram, Bangalore, the Proprietor of Syndicate Pharma is at Rajajinagar, Bangalore- 10, the rest of the two Companies is not mentioned in statement.
38. During further cross-examination of P.w.1, he has stated that he conducted search in residence of accused Syndicate Pharma, Rajajinagar, all the Companies are in his house, on the same day, they found seized documents, he has seized the documents mentioned in Form-16, the witness states that the documents are submitted and copies were taken, in Form-16 names of drugs seized is mentioned and the documents are not seized, in Ex.P.13 and 14 they have not mentioned as to the quantity of products for purchase from the accused, they are not collected purchase invoice and bills from Mahalakshmi Agencies and Mahalakshmi Pharma (Different Proprietor and different licence), he has not verified stock register book on the same day, the bill No.6938 ACETONE L.R mentioned in Ex.P.13 is not collected, it is nowhere connected to this case, the accused collected cheques for the supply of drugs to Mahalakshmi Pharma and Mahalakshmi Agencies, when he is a distributor of drugs he say that the cheque issued for that purpose, in his statement he has stated as to the supply of drugs to Mahalakshmi Pharma and Mahalakshmi Agencies, the statement is at Ex.P.22 and relevant entry is marked as Ex.P.22(e), but he 25 26 CC.No.1210-2004 has not mentioned quantity and value of the drugs supplied, he has not taken any steps to prosecute Mahalakshmi Pharma and Mahalakshmi Agencies for purchase without licence, the total quantity of drugs, name of the drugs and amount is not mentioned in the statement of Mahalakshmi Pharma and Mahalakshmi Agencies, the ledger accounts as to the purchase accounts are not taken from Mahalakshmi Pharma and Mahalakshmi Agencies, only through Bank they have taken, they have asked Mahalakshmi Pharma and Mahalakshmi Agencies about the drugs taken from accused, they had bills and notes regarding the purchase of drugs from the accused, he has not collected the extract copy/attested copies of purchase notes from Mahalakshmi Pharma and Mahalakshmi Agencies for showing the purchase from accused, he has not asked Mahalakshmi Pharma and Mahalakshmi Agencies to produce documents, as to when they supplied the drugs, some people will give with bill and some will give without bill, they asked Mahalakshmi Pharma and Mahalakshmi Agencies as to whether accused supplied with or without bill, he do not know whether Mahalakshmi Pharma and Mahalakshmi Agencies have taken the drugs from accused with bill or without bill, usually with bill only the drugs should be purchased, he has not collected any lease agreement or rental receipts of premises bearing No.122, 70th Cross, 5th Block, Rajajinagar, Bangalore-10, he has not drawn any observation with neighbouring witnesses to show that the accused running the shop in the said premises, he has not called accused to identify Smt.Manjula, landlord 26 27 CC.No.1210-2004 of the building while taking statement, he has asked Manu Pharma, about the drugs supplied by the accused to that firm, he has asked FDA, Commissioner, Mumbai orally as to the existence of JJ Dag & Co., Dr.Annie Besant Road, Mumbai, that it is Sandeep Pharma, Mumbai is correctly stated after seeing the documents, he has requested D.C., Karnataka to communicate with FDA, Commissioner, Mumbai to know the existence of M/s.Sandeep Pharma, Mumbai and received letter.
39. During further cross-examination of P.w.1, he has stated that he has not visited the premises of M/s.Sandeep Pharma, Mumbai, the D.C. has done the correspondence with them. M/s.Sandeep Pharma do not exist in Mumbai, the D.C have not collected the licence particulars of the said firm. M/s.JJ Daga & Co., M/s.Ananda Chemical Works and M/s.Syndicate Pharma situated at Rajajinagar, Bangalore, he has not seen the records to show the running of the business of the above said 3 firms, he has got the name of the above firms as it disclosed by the accused in his statement, the accused expressed in his statement that he is the sole proprietor of above said 3 firms, he has not taken any document as to the existence of above firms at Rajajinagar, Bangalore, they have taken information from the bank for making correspondence, payments receipt to the bank, he has received the cheque and transactions made through various distributors. In the name of M/s.Sandeep Pharma he has made transaction with almost all the company, he has not seen the sales tax numbers for the said 3 firms. According to his investigation done at Raj Lubricants, Chennai they came to 27 28 CC.No.1210-2004 know that they have supplied raw-materials to accused "white petroleum jelly". They have manufacturing licence for "white petroleum jelly". Ex.P.25 & 26 are collected from accused, he has not written any letter to M/s.Raj Lubricants Madras Ltd., but he has taken the statement of Director Mr.Viren B.Nanavathi, he has shown the purchase bills, particulars of analysis as per Sec.25 & 26 to the Director Mr.Viren B. Nanavathi, he has verified the stock register book of M/s.Raj Lubricates, he has not collected the extract of stock register book, he has not verified whether there are written any indent is placed for supply of raw-material "white petroleum jelly". The accused might have placed indent through phone. In Invoice bill it is not mentioned that through phone the indent is placed, he has not asked why supplied to accused who is not having licence, he is not written any letter to D.I., Chennai to take action against M/s.Raj Lubricants for having supplied the raw-materials to the un-licenced accused firm, the accused supplied Glycerin, Potassium Permanganate and Boric Acid to M/s.Manu Pharma, Bangalore-53. In the name of M/s.JJ Daga & Co., he has sent the invoice to M/s.Manu Pharma. Ex.P.30 & 31 are given by M/s.Manu Pharma, he has not seen or collected the Ex.P.30 & 31 from the premises of the accused firm, he has not verified with M/s.Manu Pharma while supply of said three items, as to whether they verified the licence particulars of M/s.JJ Daga & Co., he has not asked while recording statement of Manu Pharma as to why they have received materials without licence Nos. of accused firm, he says M/s.Manu Pharma comes under Circle-2. At that time he was working in 28 29 CC.No.1210-2004 Circle-1, he has not written any letter to take action against M/s.JJ Daga & Co.
40. During further cross examination of P.w.1, he has stated that M/s.Rajesh Pharmaceuticals also received materials from accused firm M/s.JJ Daga & Co. Ex.P.32 statement given by M/s.Rajesh Pharmaceuticals. Ex.P.33 to Ex.P.42 are the invoices issued to M/s.Rajesh Pharma by M/s.JJ Daga & Co., he has not made any statement to that effect that both are same, he is not verified whether Rajesh Pharma and Rajesh Pharmaceuticals have got any licence, he is not written any letter to Jurisdictional D.I to take action against M/s.Rajesh Pharmaceuticals since they are licence holder, he has collected certified copy of invoices from M/s.Rajesh Pharma, he has not seen, seized sent document from accused firm, he has taken accused statement before going to distributors M/s.Rajesh Pharmaceuticals and others, all the bills were tallied with the distributors, he has taken statement of accounts from distributors regarding supply of drugs made by the accused, Mr.D.B.Narayana Reddy, Sri.Shankar Jyothi and himself were D.I. at that time, he has asked all the distributors regarding licence for whom the accused supplied the drugs and they are all licence holders, it is the duty of distributors to verify the licence from whom they purchase and supply of drugs, they have shown the seized drug to the distributors as to the supply made by the accused to identify. In Exs.p.29, 32, 43 and Ex.p.51 it is not mentioned, as to the drugs shown to the distributors and identified. On 24.3.2004 they have taken local jurisdictional D.I. to M/s.Raj Lubricants, 29 30 CC.No.1210-2004 Chennai, he has not visited M/s.Sandeep Pharma Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai. In Ex.p.53 it is stated that M/s.Sandeep Pharma Pvt. Ltd., not a licence holder and does not exist in Mumabi, in letter issued by the Joint Commissioner, FDA, Mumbai, no observation mahazar is forthcoming as to the non- existence of M/S.Sandeep Pharma Pvt. Ltd.,, Mumbai, the D.C concern have written letter to Food & Drugs Administration (FDA), Mumbai, he has not produced the copy of the letter (D.O.letter) No.DCD/90/LIP/2003-04, dated:12.3.2004 (in Ex.p.53- Ref:). The Adinath Medical & General Stores comes under circle-1, Bengalore. Mr.Shankar Jyothi, D.I., Jurisdictional D.I., was taken to the premises of Adinath Medical & General Stores, Shivajinagar, Bangalore-51. In Form-16, Ex.p.56 the purpose of seizing of drugs is not mentioned. On 21.8.2003, Form-16 & panchanama is drawn. After seizure of drugs in Adinath Medical & General Stores by Mr.Shankar Jyoth the then D.I. Cricle-1, Bengalore, he received the seized drugs and documents pertaining to the case, his jurisdiction in Cricle-1 was Rajajinagar. Mr.Vedivelu, the then ADC of Circle-1, Bengalore it is not required to receive any instructions from ADC to handover drugs and documents from Mr.Shankar Jyothi as he is I.O. The instruction given by ADC is not mentioned in any records do not remember whether all the drugs seized under From-16 put into a one-carton book and sealed, he do not remember whether the box is tied with rope, he has seen I.D slips on the box, ADC, Sunil A Patil, Shankar Jyothi and witness and accused/proprietor has signed on I.D slips, total 5 persons, he saw the photographs, the drugs 30 31 CC.No.1210-2004 are mixed up, he can't identify segregating the drugs seized under Form-16 in photographs, he can't tell the drugs separately, seized from the accused by seeing photographs.
41. During further cross-examination of P.w.1, he has stated that he has not verified any invoices or bills seized from accused, out of the drugs seized only three were standard quality. He has not attempted to get opinion in respect of above three drugs from CDL, Kolkata, he admit these three drugs inrespect of which opinion was not obtained are of standard quality, he has recorded Ex.P.71 statement in his office, he has not given any request letter asking accused to give statement, he has not taken the presence of any independent witness at the time of recording statement, now he would like to say he had taken the presence of two witnesses, since one year is over, he could not remember, the name of the witnesses are Mr.Harish and Mr.Narasimhamurthy, he had obtained the report from Food and Drugs Commissioner, Mumbai regarding non-existence of M/s.Sandeep Pharma Pvt. Ltd., he has not cited the Food and Drugs Commissioner as witness in this case, he would like to say that it is not necessary, he has not enclosed all the documents to the application for sanction, he has cited D.C as a witness in this case, he do not know whether D.C has issued sanction letter after satisfied with the case, they have packed the seized drugs and packed in many boxes, he do not remember how many boxes they used to pack the drugs seized, he has sealed all the packs, he did not paste the Identity slip containing the details of drugs sealed, he has not drawn any panchanama 31 32 CC.No.1210-2004 at the time of taking photographs, he has not obtained photographs of boxes which were used for pack and seal, he has mentioned label contents of each drugs in Form-16, he has not produced negatives of photographs.
42. During further cross-examination of P.w.1, he has denied that he has not produced area wise notification and he is not having jurisdiction over Rajajinagar area to investigate and to launch the prosecution, the materials seized are not mentioned in mahazar as such the persons have not signed, after seizing drugs and drawing panachanama there is no necessity to give police complaint, all the materials facts are not mentioned in Form-16 and panchanama, anybody can open the plastic wrapper and insert anything.
43. During further cross-examination of P.w.1, he has denied that Ex.P.47 to 49, the State Analysis report is not conclusive one, he has not collected any documents for supply of finished drugs from Mahalakshmi Pharma and Mahalakshmi Agencies, the cheque is issued to some other transaction i.e. loans or others, etc., the accused has never supplied drugs to Mahalakshmi Pharma and Mahalakshmi Agencies, the accused is not a occupier of the said residence, M/s.Rajesh Pharmaceuticals is different from M/s.Rajesh Pharma, the Jurisdictional D.I., Circle-1 is only competent and having jurisdiction to file the case, the drugs and documents handed over by Mr.Shankar Jyothi is nowhere connected to this case, he had no locus- standi to file this complaint against accused, he has recorded statement as per his convenience, all the material facts are not reflected in the sanction order, the photographs produced are not connected to this case, he has 32 33 CC.No.1210-2004 never visited to accused shop, never seized, packed and sealed any drugs, all the documents have been fabricated in his office, he has recorded false statement of witnesses, nobody accompanied him at the time of alleged visit to accused shop, all his colleagues and panchas signed the documents in his office, he cannot comment on non-mentioning of the role of Sri.Shankar Jyothi in sanction order, for only statistical purpose he has filed this complaint.
44. During further cross-examination of P.w.1, he has admitted that he took two-panch witnesses along with him while going to the house of accused, Mo.18 Box-Clove oil IP, B.No.556 do not have any signatures, the rest of three drugs stated in Ex.P.47 to P.49 it is mentioned in Note: that Complete analysis of the sample could not be done due to non-availability of facilities, Form-17 is to be signed by himself and person from whom the sample is drawn, the Raj Lubricants being licence holder for "White Petroleum Jelly", they have to know whether accused firm M/s.Syndicate Pharma is having licence for receiving supply of raw-materials, he has not taken any steps to Raj Lubricants, they could take action against M/s.Manu pharma for receiving supply from M/s.JJ Daga & Co. which is unlicenced firm, the distributors have not stated that accused had no licence and they have purchased the drugs from un-licence holder the accused, he has not prosecuted all the distributors, only main accused prosecuted, his jurisdiction and jurisdiction of Mr.Shankar Jyothi were different, the subject drugs were seized within his jurisdiction, the drugs have been seized by 33 34 CC.No.1210-2004 Mr.Shankar Jyothi and handed over to him, he has not obtained any permission from the D.C. concerned to receive the drugs seized by Mr.Shankar Jyothi, Mr.Shankar Jyothi had obtained permission from the Court to retain the drugs seized in his custody, Mr.Shankar Jyothi had obtained permission from the court to handover the drugs retained by him to him, he is not aware whether permission letter is filed before this court, in respect of remaining three drugs no opinion was given, the accused had supplied drugs to five shops, he has not seized stock register book, he would like to say that accused had not maintained such register book, at the time of recording statement no stock were available in the accused company, these witnesses are not local residents, he has not visited personally Bombay to confirm non-existence of M/s.Sandeep Pharma Pvt., Ltd., he has given police complaint against the accused for same allegation, a criminal case has been registered against the accused on his complaint, he did not submit report to ADC as he was with him during investigation, the D.C has not mentioned quantity of entire drugs sold in the sanction report, there is no punishment clause in sanction order, he cannot say anything about the D.C. has not applied his active mind while issuing sanction order, he has not obtained any photographs at the time of seizure of drugs under Form-16, the photographs have been taken later in his office, he has not obtained signature of panchas, his colleagues and accused on drugs label.
45. P.w.2 Mr.Shankar Jyothi ADC, Head Quarters, Bangalore in his chief examination has stated that he was working as Drugs Inspector from June- 34 35 CC.No.1210-2004 2002 to May-2004 and was having jurisdiction over Bangalore Circle-1. The Drugs Inspector Mr.C.Kumar was having the jurisdiction of Rajajinagar, Bangalore Cirlce-1 and on internal office orders, he was having the jurisdiction of Shivajinagar, Bangalore Circle-1. On 14/7/2003 he accompanied Mr.C.Kumar along with Sri.N.Vadivelu the then ADC and Sri.Sunil A.Patil, D.I., Bangalore Circle-1 and Mr.Narayana Reddy D.I., Bangalore Circle-2 went to the resident of accused-K.Amruthlal, No.122, Ground Floor, 7th Cross, Rajajinagar, 5th Block, Bangalore-10 along with the panch witnesses by name Mr.Narasimhamurthy B.N., 24 years and Mr.B.M.Harisha, 22 years, the accused was present during their visit, they searched the premises and found the drugs (a)Potassium permanganate-IP,
(b)Boric Acid-IP, (c)Vaseline (White Petroleum Jelly I.P.) (d)Clove oil I.P., which were manufactured in the name of M/s.Sandeep Pharma Pvt., Ltd., Dr.Annie Beasant Road, Worli Mumbai-400018, (e)raw-materials, packing materials, machineries, labels used for the manufacture of the said drugs and documents of the raw-materials etc., that the above said drugs were manufactured by the fictitious firm and the fictitious addresses, it is a spurious drug U/s.17-B of D & C Act. On enquiry, the accused informed that they have manufactured/ repacked the same without licences and sold to different dealers i.e., 1)M/s.Manu Pharma 2)M/s.Pharma link, 3) M/s.Rajendra Sales Corporation, 4)M/s.Sub-lime Durgs and 5)M/s.Rajesh Pharma. Bangalore. Mr.C.Kumar recorded the statement of accused. Mr.C.Kumar had also sampled 6 drugs under Form-17 for test and analysis 35 36 CC.No.1210-2004 and then seized the available stocks of drugs, raw-materials, packing materials, machinery and labels used for the manufacture and documents of raw-materials, under form-6 and panchanama both dated:14/7/2003.
46. P.w.2 has further stated that on 21/8/2003, he along with Sri.Sunil A.Patel, Mr.Vadivelu had been to M/s.Adinath Medicals & General Stores for investigation. On search, they found drugs a)Boric acid I.P 1x400gms, B.No.MS070311, D/M:7/2003, D/E:36 months from the date of packing, packed on 7/2003, Mfd., & repacked by MEDISWISS, Bangalore. (b) Boric acid I.P 100gms, B.No.673, D/M:10/2002, D/E:24 months from the date of packing, packed on 10/2002, Mfd. & repacked by Sandeep pharma Pvt. Ltd., Bombay. (c) Boric Acid I.P 11x20gms, B.No.666, D/M:01/2002, D/E:24 months from the date of packing, packed on 01/2002, Mfd. & repacked by Sandeep Pharma Pvt. Ltd., Bombay and seized under Form-16 as per Ex.P.56, he drawn panchanama before test purchase as per Ex.P.57, panchanama-II drawn after test purchase as per Ex.P.58, the above said drugs were seized under Form-16 & mahazar as per Mo.41 to Mo.53. On 22/8/2003, he took permission of the Court to retain the seized drugs i.e., Mo.41 to Mo.53. During the inspection, he had asked Mr.U.Hans Raj, the Proprietor of M/s.Adinath Medicals & General Stores to produce purchase invoice of Mo.41 to Mo.53. On 28/8/2003 he has produced copies of purchase invoice attested by him as per Ex.P.64 & Ex.P.65. On enquiry, he found there is no company by name J.J. Daga & Company, it is fictitious company created by accused. He took a statement of Mr.Premraj, 36 37 CC.No.1210-2004 Proprietor of M/s.Pravesh Pharma on 30/8/2003 as per Ex.P.66. On 30/3/2004, he handed over all the papers to investigation officer Mr.C.Kumar.
47. During cross-examination of P.w.2, he has stated that he had jurisdiction to investigate the cases of Shivajinagar Jurisdiction, they have produced notification in this effect which is at Ex.P.3(a), he do not remember the door number, street name, street number of the accused house, he do not know whether investigation officer called local person to be a panch witness, he do not know the address of panchas, he do not remember how many rooms were there in the accused house, the drugs were kept in all the rooms, he do not remember the number of drugs seized, he do not remember how many boxes seized and sealed, he do not remember how many have signed on the boxes seized and sealed, 5 officers, 2 panchas and accused signed to the mahazar, two copies have been prepared, in Form-16 too same persons have signed. Adinath Medical and General Stores is situated at Shivajinagar. Mr.U.Hansraj is the proprietor of above said stores, they four myself, Mr.Vadivelu and 2 panch witnesses had been to above said stores, 3 item drugs have been seized in the above said stores, he say voluntarily that since Mo.43 was very small in size, he could not take signature of one person, but he has taken remaining 4 persons signature, the panch witness of Ex.P.56 & 57 are local residents, now he say one is from Lingarajpuram and another is from Shivajinagar, he did not call neighbour shop owners as panch witnesses, he called them but they 37 38 CC.No.1210-2004 refused to be panch witnesses, he has not made any endorsement or shara in the mahazar to this effect, he has not obtained any statement from the Proprietor of Adinath Medicals, they had furnished purchase bills but later i.e., one week after seizure of the drugs, he has not given any notice to Mr.Premraj to give statement, he recorded statement in his office, he has not seized any drugs from the office of Mr.Premraj at the time of taking his statement, he did not receive any instructions or specific orders from Drugs Controller to investigate and report it to the Mr.Kumar, I.O., the then ADC, Circle-1 had orally instructed me to handover the papers to Mr.Kumar.
48. During further cross-examination of P.w.2, he has denied that he had no jurisdiction to handle the cases of Shivajinagar, Ex.P.3(a) do not empower him to investigate the matters of Shivajinagar, Ex.P.56 to Ex.P.57 and Mo's.47 to 48 are not connected to this case, on 14/7/2003 he did not visit the house of accused, on 21/8/2003, he did not visit to Adinath Medicals & General Stores, he did not seized any Mo's, he did not prepared mahazar or Form-16, all the documents and Mo's are fabricated and created for the purpose of this case, to support Mr.Kumar, I.O. and his department he is deposing falsely.
49. During further cross-examination of P.w.2, he has admitted that there were residential houses around accused house, he is investigation officer to Ex.P.56, Ex.P.57 the Form-16 and panchanama respectively, he has not written all the label contents of Mo.41 to Mo.43 in Ex.P.56 & 57, he has not put department/designation seal on Mo.41 to Mo.43, Five have signed on 38 39 CC.No.1210-2004 Mo.41 & Mo.42, Four have signed on Mo.43, all the persons signed in mahazar have not signed in Mo.43, Ex.P.57 and Ex.P.58 panchanama have been drawn in the same day, panch witnesses of both panchanama are same, he say that in addition to witnesses of Ex.P.57, he had obtained signature of shop owner to Ex.P.58, he has recited Ex.P.56 in Ex.P.58, Adinath Medical and General Stores had drug licence.
50. P.w.3 Sri.Narasimha Murthy, Sales Assistant, Bangalore in his chief examination has stated that he was working as a Sales Assistant in the Year-2002 in Dinesh Medicals, Bhasham Circle, Rajajinagar, Bangalore, himself and his friend Mr.Harish were having coffee in Canara Coffee Center in front of his Medical Shop, the Drugs Inspector-Mr.Kumar shown his visiting card and asked them to be panch witnesses to raid the house of accused-Amruth Lal at Rajajinagar, himself and his friend Mr.Harish accompanied Drugs Inspector and his company around 4-5 officers, they went to accused-Amruth Lal house at 5.00 p.m., when they went inside, there were some medicines and surgical items, Mr.Kumar enquired accused about having licence for having possession of the medicines, the accused said he does not have licence. Among the medicines there were Bioline, Clove oil, Castrol oil were there. There were also labels, sealing machines, glucose powder, surgical items. Mr. Kumar seized all medicines and surgical items, labels. He drawn panchanama, took their signature, seized medicines have been put in a box and tied with thread. At the time of mahazar, D.I.-Mr.Kumar has also drawn samples of Vaseline, Glycerin, 39 40 CC.No.1210-2004 Clove oil out of seized medicines about 35 items have been seized as per Ex.p.89 to 109.
51. During cross-examination of P.w.3, he has stated that he had seen Drugs Inspector-Mr.Kumar even before he met him in Canara Coffee Center, he cannot say the house numbers of adjacent to house of accused, there were 4-5 rooms in the house of accused, he cannot say the name of medicines, which were kept in the rooms specifically, but he say in all the rooms the medicines were stored, medicines were kept in box on seized, he cannot say specifically the name of 35 drugs, he do not know how many persons have signed to the mahazar apart him, 2-3 polythene bags were seized, he do not know the items packed in polythene bags, he do not know how many labels seized, he do not know the label contents.
52. During further cross-examination of P.w.3, he has denied that to support Mr.Kumar he is deposed false, no medicines and surgical items have been seized in his presence, he has signed to the mahazar in the house of accused.
53. During further cross-examinations of P.w.3, he has admitted that the Drugs Inspector-Mr.Kumar used to visit their medical shop oftenly.
54. P.w.4 Sri.N.Vadivelu, Deputy Drugs Controller, Head Quarters, Bangalore in his chief examination has stated that he was working as ADC, Circle-1, Bangalore from Sept-1999 to July-2004. On 14/7/2003, he accompanied Pw-1 Mr.C.Kumar and other 2 Drugs Inspector working in Circle-1 Bangalore. They secured two panchas Cw-2 & Cw-3 and they visited to 40 41 CC.No.1210-2004 accused premises. The accused was present during their visit. The D.I. Mr.C.Kumar with the help of other officers searched the residential premises of accused and found the drugs like potassium permanganate I.P., Boric acid I.P., Vaseline (White Petroleum Jelly) I.P., Clove oil I.P which were manufactured in the name of fictitious firm M/s.Sandeep Pharma Pvt., Ltd., Dr.Anne Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai-40018, they found raw-materials, packing materials, labels, machineries which were used for the drugs found manufactured by way of re-packing in the residential premises. During their enquiry with accused, they informed that he manufactured the drugs found by way of re-packing without licence and sold to various dealers like M/s.Manu Pharma, Bangalore, M/s.Pharma Link, Bangalore, M/s.Rajendra Sales Corporation and M/s.Rajesh Pharma, Bangalore. P.w.1 recorded the statement of accused as per Ex.P.22, from the available stock of the drugs found. P.w.1 has drawn 6 drugs under Form-17 as per Ex.P.15. P.w.1 received cash bill/credit bill for Rs.1,172/- from accused for making payment for the cost of the drugs as per Ex.P.16. P.w.1 seized 34 items of finished drug product manufactured in the name of fictitious firm M/s.Sandeep Pharma, raw-materials, labels, machineries etc., under Form No.16 as per Ex.P.17 to Ex.P.20, the drugs seized are at Mo.13 to Mo.40. A panchanama was prepared for the search, seizure and sampling as per Ex.P.21.
55. P.w.4 has further stated that on 21.8.2003 he accompanied Mr.Shankar Jyothi and Mr.Sunil A. Patil along with panchas Mr.Stephen and Mr.Tanveer Pasha to Adinath Medical and General Stores, Shivajinagar, Bangalore-51, 41 42 CC.No.1210-2004 they conducted a investigation under panchanama-1 & panchanama-2 as per Ex.P.57 and Ex.P.58. During their visit, Sri.U.Hansraj, Proprietor of Adinath Medical and General Stores was present. The Drugs Inspector seized 4 drugs as per Form-16 which is at Ex.P.56. 13 drugs were seized under Form-16 which are at Mo.41 to Mo.53. Out of which Mo.52 was manufactured by accused in the name of M/s.Sandeep Pharma Pvt., Ltd., Mumbai. Based on request of P.w.1, he issued a letter dated:30/3/2004 that JJ Daga and Company, Anand Chemical Works, Syndicate Pharma had no drug licence as per letter Ex.P.54. He forwarded the reports of investigation submitted by P.w.1 to the D.C.
56. During cross-examination of P.w.4, he has stated that the accused address is Door No.122, Ground Floor, 7th Cross, Rajajinagar, 5th Block, Bangalore, there were 5 rooms apart from kitchen and washroom, he do not remember who were there with accused when they visited his house, there were other residential houses around accused house, the adjacent house were 121 and 123, the Schedule is mentioned in mahazar, the Panchas were residing in and around Rajajinagar, one is from Kamakshipalya and another from Manjunathanagar, Mo.1 to 40 were kept in various rooms, he cannot say which Mos. kept in which room specifically, he cannot say in how many container/boxes Mo.1 to Mo.40 were packed, Mos.1 to 12 all the person who ever present were signed, except in one small sample drug, he do not remember whether I.D slips were pasted on Mos., the raw-materials have not been weighed, but he say it were valued on the basis of label, he do not 42 43 CC.No.1210-2004 remember whether all the label contents were mentioned in mahazar, he do not know the colour of caps, he do not remember how many Vaseline boxes were seized, he do not remember the total number of bottles seized, including accused 8 persons have signed in panchanama.
57. During cross examination of P.w.4, he has denied that he did not accompanied I.O. and they did not drawn any mahazar, Mo.1 to 40 were not been seized much less in his present, he has put his signature in the Drug Office to the mahazar, to support P.w.1 he is deposing falsely.
58. P.w.5 Mr.Rajesh, Business, Bangalore in his chief examination has stated that he has completed II-PUC. M/s.Rajesh Pharmaceuticals was running by his Father and he is the competent person to that firm. In the absence of his Father, he used to run Pharmaceuticals. On 10/9/2003 he was in the firm, C.w.1 & 8 came to his firm and enquired about they purchased drugs from M/s.J.J.Daga and Company, he confirmed their transaction with M/s.J.J.Daga & Company and produced copies of 10 purchase bills as per Ex.P.33 to 42. He gave his statement to C.w.1 in this regard as per Ex.P.32, they had purchased liquid paraffin, glycerin and glucose powder under the purchase invoice, he handed over to C.w.1 at the time of his statement as per Ex.P.33 to Ex.P.42. At the time of transaction, they had made payment on cash. The authorized signatory of M/s.J.J.Daga & Company has put his signature acknowledging the receipt of cash on Ex.P.33 to Ex.P.42, but the accused used to go to their shop to receive the cash towards supply of drugs from M/s.J.J Daga & Company.
43 44 CC.No.1210-2004
59. During cross examination of P.w.5, he has stated that he is the competent person of M/s.Rajesh Pharmaceuticals, he has given documents to the Drugs Inspector to show that he is the competent person.
60. During further cross-examination of P.w.5, he has denied that he is not the competent person of the said Pharmaceutical, only his father knows the business transaction and he do not know, at the instructions of Drugs Inspector he has given false statement, to support Drugs Inspector, he is deposing false.
61. During further cross examination of P.w.5, he has admitted that Mr. T.R.Bhatia is the owner of the M/s.Rajesh Pharmaceutical, Bangalore.
62. P.w.6 Sri.Hansaraj, Proprietor, M/s.Adinath Medicals, Bangalore in his chief examination has stated that he is running Medical Store since Year-2000. On 21/8/2003 Mr.Vadivelu, ADC, Mr.Shankar Jyothi, D.I. and other D.I. had visited their shop and seized drugs 11x20gms of Boric Acid, 1x100gm Boric Acid and 1x400 gms Boric Acid i.e., Mos. 41 to 53, he has purchased Mos.41 to 53 under invoices. They have drawn panchanama in this regard as per panchanama Ex.P.58 in presence of panchas Mr.Tanvir and Mr.Stephen. He has given his statement in this regard as per Ex.P.88, 3 invoices are at Ex.P.63 to 65.
63. During cross-examination of P.w.6, he has stated that Mr.Shankar Joythi is the Jurisdictional Drugs Inspector, at the time of seizure 5 persons were there, he do not know how many persons have signed on Mos., panchanama and Form-16 apart him, he did not observe whether label 44 45 CC.No.1210-2004 contents have been mentioned in Form-16, he do not remember whether label contents have been written in panchanama, he has not signed in Mos., except Mos.41 to 43, at the date of seizure qualified person-chemist was present.
64. During further cross-examination of P.w.6, he has admitted that the seized drugs have not been sealed, Ambaca medco is having whole sale licence, J.J.Daga & Company and Pravesh Pharma are having whole sale licence, no endorsement is made as to payment in Ex.P.63 & Ex.P.64, he do not know address of panchas.
65. During further cross examination of P.w.6, he has denied that either ADC or Drugs Inspector visited their shop, did not seize the Mos., did not drawn mahazar or Form-16, by colluding with Drugs Inspector he is deposing falsely, the invoices are not connected to this case, Mr.Shankar Jyothi has prepared inspection report, they did not verified stock register book.
66. P.w.7 Smt.Manjula, House-Wife, Bangalore, in her chief examination has stated that she is the owner of the Premises-122, 70th Cross, 5th Block, Rajajinagar. She had given this premises for rent to accused-Amruth Lal for residential purpose, accused-Amruth Lal and his family were residing in the said Building for 3-4 years. The Drugs Inspector came for inspection on 10/9/2003, she gave her statement in this regard as per Ex.P.28.
67. During cross examination of P.w.7, she has stated that Ex.P.28 is in the English language, she do not know English, the contents of Ex.P.28 was not 45 46 CC.No.1210-2004 readover to him when he put his signature, he know the contents of Ex.P.28 now, it is true.
68. P.w.8 Sri.Prem Raj, Business, Bangalore in his chief examination has stated that he is Proprietor of M/s.Pravesh Pharma. Ex.P.44 is the invoice under which he purchased drugs from J.J.Daga & Company and he gave his statement in this regard as per Ex.P.43. He made payment through cheques bearing No.077601, dated:15/1/2003 for Rs.3,722/-. No.077602 dated:17/1/2003 for Rs.3,722/-. No.077603, dated:20/1/2003 for Rs.3,722/- and No.077604 dated: 23/1/2003 for Rs.3,723/- and sold the same to Adinath Medicals and General Stores, Shivajinagar, Bangalore as per sale invoice Ex.P.65, he had written a letter to Drugs Inspector on 30/8/2003 as per Ex.P.66.
69. During cross-examination of P.w.8, he has stated that he do not have purchase order, he is having valid licence, he did not verify whether purchase order was there or not, he did not verify whether licence was there or not.
70. During further cross-examination of P.w.8, he has admitted that he sold the drugs to licence holder.
71. During further cross-examination of P.w.8, he has denied that he neither purchased drugs from the accused nor supplied to the public, to support Drugs Inspector he is deposing false.
72. P.w.9 Sri.Viren Nanavati, Director, M/s.Raj Lubricants, Chennai in his chief examination has stated that he is a Director of M/s.Raj Lubricants. On 46 47 CC.No.1210-2004 24/3/2004 he issued a letter to Drugs Inspector, Bangalore Circle-1 that they have sold 5 drums of Rajell White Petroleum Jelly to M/s.Syndicate Pharma, Bangalore on their request for information as per Ex.P.51 along with letter he has furnished invoice as per Ex.P.52.
73. During cross-examination of P.w.9, he has denied that he has not supplied 5 drums of Rajell White Petroleum Jelly to M/s.Syndicate Pharma, Bangalore.
74. P.w.10 Sri.Harshad Vora, Assistant Manager, City Union Bank, Ahamadbad Branch, Ahamadbad in his chief examination has stated that from 2000 to 2006, he was working as Assistant Manager in City Union Bank, Sultanpet Branch. On 29/3/2004 he received a letter from D.C., seeking details of accounts maintained by accused-J.Amruthlal as per Ex.P.85. On 5/4/2004 he replied through office letter that accused had maintained two accounts in the name of M/s.J.J.Daga & Company and M/s.Ananda Chemicals Works as per the reply letter Ex.P.70.
75. During cross examination of P.w.10, he has denied that the accused had not maintained any accounts of M/s.Daga & M/s.Ananda Chemicals Works, the information given in the reply is false.
76. P.w.11 Sri.Sudhir Vasudev Deshpande, Retired Joint Commissioner, FDA, Maharastra in his chief examination has stated that during 2004, he was working as Joint Commissioner (vigilance), FDA, Maharastra. In March- 2004 Commissioner, FDA received D.O., letter from D.C., Karnataka, a letter was forwarded to D.I., Intelligence Branch for enquiry. Based on his 47 48 CC.No.1210-2004 report under his letter dated:24/3/2004, he informed D.C., Karnataka that M/s.Sandeep Pharma Pvt., Ltd., Worli does not hold licence as per Ex.P.53.
77. During cross-examination of P.w.11, he has denied that as Department has given incomplete address of M/s.Sandeep Pharma, he could not trace his licence particulars, without verifying properly he has given false report as per Ex.P.53.
78. P.w.12 Sri.P.Nagaraja Chadaga, Retired Branch Manager, Karnataka Bank Ltd., Bangalore in his chief examination has stated that during 2003 to 2007, he was working as Branch Manager in Karnataka Bank Ltd., City Market Branch, Bangalore. On 30.3.2004 Drugs Inspector-Mr.Kumar had asked for confirmation of passing of 4 cheques in a letter as per Ex.P.84, he gave reply on 5.4.2004 confirming that the cheques referred by Drugs Inspector have been passed. The cheques were drawn in favour of J.J.Daga and Company as per Ex.P.67. He had enclosed xerox copies of cheques to the said reply as per Ex.P.68 and 69.
79. During cross-examination of P.w.12, he has stated that the original cheques are available in bank, Ex.P.84 is served personally on him by hand, the Drugs Inspector did not see original cheques.
80. During further cross-examination of P.w.12, he has denied that he has given false report at the request of Drugs Inspector.
81. P.w.13 Sri.Suresh K.Mohammed, Inspector General of Police, SIT, Karnataka Lokayukta, Bangalore in his chief examiantion has stated that from 16.6.2003 to 15.7.2004, he worked as D.C., for the State of Karnataka, 48 49 CC.No.1210-2004 he was notified by the Government of Karnataka as the Controlling authority and all Officers of the Drugs Control Department were Sub-ordinate to him. He was competent to sanction permission for launching prosecution in the State of Karnataka. The Drugs Inspector, Bangalore Circle-1 vide his letter dated:08/4/2004 requested permission to prosecute accused-Amruthlal for violation of S.18(c), 17B© & 18A of Drugs & Cosmetic Act, 1940. He had examined the report of Drugs Inspector, Bangalore Circle-1 in detail & the Drugs Inspector during the course of investigation noticed that accused had manufactured the following spurious drugs by a fictitious firm with a factious address i.e., a) Potassium Permanganate I.P., b) Boric Acid I.P., c) Vaseline (White Petroleum Jelly) I.P., d) Clove Oil I.P.,
82. P.w.13 has further stated that the Drugs Inspector in his investigation has noticed that accused has manufactured spurious drugs in the name of M/s.Sandeep Pharma, Dr.Annie Besant Road, Mumbai which is a fictitious firm which does not exist and there by violated Sec.17B© of Drugs & Cosmetic Act, 1940, the accused manufactured the said spurious drugs without licence in violation of Sec.18© of Drugs & Cosmetic Act, 1940, the accused sold the said spurious drugs with a firm name J.J.Daga and Company, No.21, 11th Cross, Malleshwaram, Bangalore-03 without a valid licence to M/s.Parvesh Pharama, Bangalore-53, M/s.Adinath Medical & General Stores, Bangalore-51, M/s.Manu Pharma, Bangalore-53, M/s.Mahalakshmi Agencies, Bangalore-53, M/s.Mahalakshmi Pharma, Bangalore-53 and M/s.Rajesh Pharmaceuticals, Bangalore-53 and thereby 49 50 CC.No.1210-2004 violated S.18© of the Drugs & Cosmetic Act, 1940, the accused further violated S.18A by not disclosing source of acquisition of raw-materials such as 1 bag of Boric Acid I.P., 3x35lts of liquid Paraffin I.P., and One Drum of Potassium Permanganate, after fully satisfied himself, he issued sanction dated:11/5/2004 to prosecute the accused for the violation of S.18(c), 17B© and 18A of Drugs & Cosmetic Act, 1940 as per Ex.P.78 and the report of Drugs Inspector is at Ex.P.77.
83. During cross-examination of P.w.13, he has stated that he is professionally IPS Officer, his qualification is MBBS and IPS, he has looked into Label record while issuing sanction.
84. During further cross-examination of P.w.13, he has denied that he is not qualified to issue sanction, he has not seen seized drugs at the time of issuance of sanction, all the material facts are not reflecting in sanction order, he has not applied his mind in issuing sanction order, the sanction is bad in Law.
85. During further cross-examination of P.w.13, he has admitted that he has not obtained Degree in Pharmacy or Microbiology, he has not mentioned this fact in the sanction order specifically and the punishment section is not mentioned in the sanction order.
86. In support of oral evidence, the complainant has placed documentary evidence at Ex.p.1 to 109 i.e., Ex.p.1 Copy of Appointment Order, Ex.p.2 Mysore Gazette Notification, Ex.p.3 Government Order, Ex.p.4 Requisition Letter, Ex.p.5 FIR, Ex.p.6 Permission Letter, Ex.p.7 to 12 Six Form No.18, 50 51 CC.No.1210-2004 Ex.p.13 Letter dated:25.7.2003 & Statement, Ex.p.14 Letter dated:26.7.2003 & Statement, Ex.p.15 Form No.17, Ex.p.16 Cash Bill, Ex.p.17 Form No.16, Ex.p.18 Form No.16, Ex.p.19 Form No.16, Ex.p.20 Form No.16, Ex.p.21 Panchanama, Ex.p.22 Statement of Accused, Ex.p.23 Notice, Ex.p.24 Covering Letter, Ex.p.25 & 26 A/c of Purchase Invoices, Ex.p.27 Reply, Ex.p.28 Statement of Smt.Manjula, Ex.p.29 Statement of K.N.Udaya Kumar, Ex.p.30 & 31 Invoices, Ex.p.32 Statement of Rajesh, Ex.p.33 to 42 A/c of Invoices, Ex.p.43 Statement Premraj, Ex.p.44 A/c of Invoice, Ex.p.45 to 50 Tests Reports, Ex.p.51 Statement of Viren B. Nanavathi, Ex.p.52 A/c of Invoice, Ex.p.53 Covering Letter, Ex.p.54 Letter, Ex.p.55 Covering Letter, Ex.p.56 Form No.16, Ex.p.57 Panchanama, Ex.p.58 Another Panchanama, Ex.p.59 Permission Letter, Ex.p.60 Statement of Proprietor of M/s.Adinath Medical & General Store, Ex.p.61 to 65 A/c of Invoices, Ex.p.66 Letter of Mr.Premraj, Ex.p.67 Statement of Karnataka Bank Manager, Ex.p.68 & 69 A/c of Cheques, Ex.p.70 Statement of City Union Bank Ltd., Ex.p.71 Statement of Accused dated:5.4.04, Ex.p.72 Statement of Bank Manager, Ex.p.73 & 74 A/c of Cheques, Ex.p.75 to 77 Letters, Ex.p.78 Sanction order, Ex.p.79 Complaint, Ex.p.80 X/c of Complaint, Ex.p.81 FIR, Ex.p.82 Report, Ex.p.83 Letter, Ex.p.84 Letter, Ex.p.85 Letter, Ex.p.86 Statement of Accused, Ex.p.87 Permission Letter, Ex.p.88 Statement of Hansaraj, Ex.p.89 to 109 Photographs.
87. P.w.1 Sri.Kumar is the I.O., according to him, he has seized subject drugs i.e., a)Boric acid I.P 1x400gms, B.No.MS070311, D/M:7/2003, D/E:36 51 52 CC.No.1210-2004 months from the date of packing, packed on 7/2003, Mfd., & repacked by MEDISWISS, Bangalore. (b)Boric acid I.P 100gms, B.No.673, D/M:10/2002, D/E:24 months from the date of packing, packed on 10/2002, Mfd., & repacked by Sandeep Pharma Pvt., Ltd., Bombay. (c)Boric Acid I.P 11x20gms, B.No.666, D/M:01/2002, D/E:24 months from the date of packing, packed on 01/2002, Mfd. & repacked by Sandeep Pharma Pvt., Ltd., Bombay from No.122, Ground Floor, 70th Cross, 5th Block, Rajajinagar, Bangalore-10 in presence of panch witnesses Sri.B.N.Narasimhamurthy & Sri.B.M.Harisha. Sri.B.N. Narasimhamurthy has been examined as P.w.3 who has deposed in consonance with the evidence of P.w.1 and also Form No.16 marked at Ex.p.17 to 20 (four in numbers) and panchanama marked at Ex.p.21 dated:14.7.2003.
88. In addition to which, the statement of accused marked at Ex.P.22 also shows that the above said drugs in question have been seized from his premises at No.122, Ground Floor, 70th Cross, 5th Block, Rajajinagar, Bangalore-10.
89. P.w.7 Smt.Manjula the owner of the said premises has given evidence that she had given said premises for rent to the accused and his family. P.w.12 Sri.Nagaraja Chadaga the Bank Manager has deposed that he has given his statement as per Ex.p.67 enclosed with the copies of cheques marked as Ex.p.68 & 69 that the cheques have been passed in favour of J.J.Daga & Company. The Ex.p.70 is the letter of City Union Bank. The Ex.p.71 is the letter of Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank Ltd., Ex.73 and 74 copies of passed 52 53 CC.No.1210-2004 cheques shows J.J Daga & Co., is in existence. Actually, the accused counsel no where in the cross examination taken defence that J.J.Daga & Company is not in existence and the accused is not residing in No.122, Ground Floor, 70th Cross, 5th Block, Rajajinagar, Bangalore-10.
90. In addition to which during the cross examination of P.w.12, the learned counsel for accused has nothing elicited which leads to disbelieve the evidence of P.w.12, as same during the cross examination of P.w.7 also nothing elicited which leads to disbelieve the evidence of P.w.7.
91. During cross-examination of P.w.3, of course, he has admitted that he knows the Drugs Inspector Sri.C.Kumar earlier, he used to visit their Medical Shop oftenly. But only because of this, his evidence cannot be disbelieved as no other ground to reject his evidence. As such it is proved that the subject drugs have been seized from the premises of accused i.e., No.122, Ground Floor, 70th Cross, 5th Block, Rajajinagar, Bangalore-10 & accused was running J.J.Daga & Company in the said address.
92. The evidence of P.w.2 has stated that himself, Sri.Sunil A.Patel & Sri.Vadivelu had been to M/s.Adinath Medicals & General Stores for investigation, on search they found drugs i.e., a)Boric acid I.P 1x400gms, B.No.MS070311, D/M:7/2003, D/E:36 months from the date of packing, packed on 7/2003, Mfd., & repacked by MEDISWISS, Bangalore. (b)Boric acid I.P 100gms, B.No.673, D/M:10/2002, D/E:24 months from the date of packing, packed on 10/2002, Mfd. & repacked by Sandeep Pharma Pvt. Ltd., Bombay. (c)Boric Acid I.P 11x20gms, B.No.666, D/M:01/2002, D/E:24 53 54 CC.No.1210-2004 months from the date of packing, packed on 01/2002, Mfd., & repacked by Sandeep Pharma Pvt. Ltd., Bombay and seized under Form-16 as per Ex.P.56, he drawn panchanama before test purchase as per Ex.P.57, panchanama-II drawn after test purchase as per Ex.P.58, during the inspection, he had asked Mr.U.Hans Raj, the Proprietor of M/s.Adinath Medicals & General Stores to produce purchase invoice of subject drugs i.e., Mo.41 to Mo.53, he has produced copies of purchase invoice as per Ex.P.64 & Ex.P.65. On enquiry, he found there is no company by name J.J. Daga & Company & it is fictitious company created by accused, he took a statement of Mr.Premraj, Proprietor of M/s.Pravesh Pharma on 30/8/2003 as per Ex.P.66. On 30/3/2004, he handed over all the papers to investigation officer Mr.C.Kumar.
93. During cross-examination nothing elected which leads to disbelieve his evidence.
94. P.w.4 Sri.N.Vadivelu the then Drugs Controller has stated about he visited M/s.Sandeep Pharma Pvt., Ltd., he enquired about the address of M/s.Sandeep Pharma Pvt., Ltd., which is situated at Dr.Anne Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai-40018, but found no such company was in existence, as same P.w.11 Sri.Sudhir Vasudev Deshpande, Retired Joint Commissioner has stated about he has verified through Intelligence Branch that M/s.Sandeep Pharma is not in existence.
95. During cross examination of P.w.11, the learned counsel for the accused has suggested that the Department has given incomplete address of 54 55 CC.No.1210-2004 M/s.Sandeep Pharma, he could not trace his licence particulars, without verifying property he has given false report as per Ex.p.53. In this way, the accused has admitted that the existence of M/s.Sandeep Pharma, but he has not placed any documents to show that it was running with licence.
96. P.w.5, 6 & 8 have deposed about they have purchased drugs from J.J.Daga & Company. P.w.9 has deposed about they have supplied the drugs to J.J.Daga & Company, but the accused has not produced any documents showing that he was running the business with licence and required registration. This shows that the accused was running fictitious firms to manufacture, stock and sale the drugs. As such I hold that the prosecution has proved the allegations made against the accused for the offence u/s.18(a)(i) r/w.s.17B(c) & Sec.18(c) which is punishable u/s.27(c) & 27(b)(ii) of the Drugs & Cosmetic Act, 1940. Hence, I answer Points No.1 & 2 in affirmative.
97. Point No.3: It is also allegations of the complainant that the accused did not furnish the source of acquisition of subject drugs seized from his custody. But as per the evidence of P.w.1, Ex.p.22 is the statement of accused, according to which the accused has stated that he is also manufacturing & repackaging M/s.Sandeep Pharma & J.J.Daga & Company situated at Dr.Anne Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai-40018 in his residence itself, he is not having drugs licence of manufacturing & repackaging, sale of IP grade medicine for any of the drugs seized from him. This shows he has answered 55 56 CC.No.1210-2004 as to source of acquisition of drugs that he himself was manufacturing the drugs. Thus, this offence is not proved.
98. At the out set, I hold that the prosecution has failed to prove allegations made against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt & hence I answer Point No.3 in negative.
99. Point No.4: In view of my findings on Points No.1 to 3, I proceed to pass the following order.
ORDER Acting u/s.248(2) of the Cr.P.C., the accused is convicted for the offences U/s.18(a)(i) R/w.17B(c) & Sec.18(c) which is punishable u/s.27(c) & 27(b)(ii) of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940.
Acting u/s.248(1) of the Cr.P.C., the accused is acquitted for the offence U/s.18-A which is punishable u/s.28 of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940.
The bail bond of accused stands cancelled.
Call on hearing regarding sentence.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, directly on computer, typed by her, corrected and then rd pronounced by me, in open court on this the 23 day of September 2016.) PRESIDING OFFICER.
56 57 CC.No.1210-2004 ORDERS REGARDING THE SENTENCE
100. Heard the accused, his counsel and Sr.APP on sentence. The accused submits that he is suffering from Sugar & Epilepsy, he has closed all his business, he has not habitual, he has got no source of income, he has got dependents. With this prays to reduce the sentence.
101. The learned Sr.APP submits that there is no report as to accused is habitual. He admits accused has closed all his business & prays to punish the accused in accordance with law.
102. Heard, Perused the records, the offence alleged to have been committed by the accused is in the Year-2004 for which the Old Drugs & Cosmetic Act, 1940 is applicable. Sec.27© & 27(b)(ii) of the Old Drugs & Cosmetic Act, 1940 reads as follows:
"S.27: Penalty for Manufacture, sale etc., of drugs in contravention of this Chapter:
Whoever, himself or by any other person on his behalf, manufactures for sale or for distribution, or sells, or stocks, or exhibits or offers for sale or distributors: -
c) any drug deemed to be spurious under Section.17-B, but not being a drug referred to in clause (a) shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to five years and with fine which shall not be less than five thousand rupees :
Provided that the court any, for any adequate and special reasons to be recorded in the judgement, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than three years but not less than one year:57 58 CC.No.1210-2004
103. According to Sec.27(b)(ii) of the Act, the imprisonment shall not be less than 3 year but shall be reduced to one year with adequate reason, as same with fine which shall be reduced on adequate reasons.
S.27: Penalty for Manufacture, sale etc., of drugs in contravention of this Chapter:
Whoever, himself or by any other person on his behalf, manufactures for sale or for distribution, or sells, or stocks, or exhibits or offers for sale or distributors: -
b) any drug :
ii) without a valid licence as required under clause (c) of section 18, Shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to three years and with fine which shall not be less than five thousand rupees:
Provided that the Court may, for any adequate and special reasons to be recorded in the judgement, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than one year and of fine of less than five thousand rupees :
104. According to Sec.27(b)(ii) of the Act, the sentence can be reduced to less than one year if adequate reasons placed, as same fine also shall be reduced if adequate reasons placed. The reasons placed are adequate to reduce sentence and fine. With this I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The accused shall under to imprisonment for 1 year and shall pay fine of Rs.5000/-, in default to under go imprisonment for period of 3 months for the offence punishable u/s.27© of the Old Drugs & Cosmetic Act, 1940.
The accused shall under to imprisonment for 1 month and shall pay fine of Rs.5000/-, in default to under go imprisonment for period of 3 months for the offence punishable u/s.27(b)(ii) of the Old Drugs & Cosmetic Act, 1940.58 59 CC.No.1210-2004
The samples of Mos.1 to 53 be released to the custody of complainant to dispose off the same in accordance with law after the appeal period is over.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, directly on computer, typed by her corrected and then rd pronounced by me, in open court on this the 23 day of September 2016) PRESIDING OFFICER.
ANNEXURE:
ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT:
Witnesses:
P.w.1 C.Kumar, P.w.2 Shankar Jyothi, P.w.3 Narasimha Murthy, P.w.4 N.Vadivelu, P.w.5 Rajesh, P.w.6 Hansaraj, P.w.7 Smt.Manjula, P.w.8 Prem Raj, P.w.9 Viren B. Nanavati, P.w.10 Harshad Vora, P.w.11 Sudhir Vasudev Deshpande, P.w.12 P.Nagaraja Chadaga, P.w.13 Suresh K.Mohammed.
Documents:
Ex.p.1 Copy of Appointment Order, Ex.p.2 Mysore Gazette Notification, Ex.p.3 Government Order, Ex.p.3(a) Relevant Portion, Ex.p.4 Requisition Letter, Ex.p.5 FIR, Ex.p.6 Permission Letter, Ex.p.7 to 12 Six Form No.18, Ex.p.7(a) to 12(a) Sig. of P.w.1, Ex.p.13 Letter dtd:25.7.2003 & Statement, Ex.p.13(a) Sig. of Mohanlal Prajapet, Ex.p.14 Letter dtd:26.7.2003 & Statement, Ex.p.14(a) Sig. of Muparam Boranna, Ex.p.15 Form No.17, Ex.p.15(a) Sig. of P.w.1, Ex.p.15(b) Sig. of Accused, Ex.p.15(c) & (d) Sig. of Panchas, Ex.p.15(e) Sig. of N.Vadivelu, 59 60 CC.No.1210-2004 Ex.p.15(f) Sig. of Sunil A.Patel, Ex.p.15(g) Sig. of Shankar Jyothi, Ex.p.15(h) Sig. of Narayana Reddy, Ex.p.16 Cash Bill, Ex.p.16(a) Sig. of P.w.1, Ex.p.16(b) Sig. of Accused, Ex.p.16(c) & (d) Sig. of Panchas, Ex.p.16(e) Sig. of N.Vadivelu, Ex.p.16(f) Sig. of Sunil A.Patel, Ex.p.16(g) Sig. of Shankar Jyothi, Ex.p.16(h) Sig. of Narayana Reddy, Ex.p.17 Form No.16, Ex.p.17(a) Sig. of P.w.1, Ex.p.17(b) Sig. of Accused, Ex.p.17(c) & (d) Sig. of Panchas, Ex.p.17(e) Sig. of N.Vadivelu, Ex.p.17(f) Sig. of Sunil A.Patel, Ex.p.17(g) Sig. of Shankar Jyothi, Ex.p.17(h) Sig. of Narayana Reddy, Ex.p.18 Form No.16, Ex.p.18(a) Sig. of P.w.1, Ex.p.18(b) Sig. of Accused, Ex.p.18(c) & (d) Sig. of Panchas, Ex.p.18(e) Sig. of N.Vadivelu, Ex.p.18(f) Sig. of Sunil A.Patel, Ex.p.18(g) Sig. of Shankar Jyothi, Ex.p.18(h) Sig. of Narayana Reddy, Ex.p.19 Form No.16, Ex.p.19(a) Sig. of P.w.1, Ex.p.19(b) Sig. of Accused, Ex.p.19(c) & (d) Sig. of Panchas, Ex.p.19(e) Sig. of N.Vadivelu, Ex.p.19(f) Sig. of Sunil A.Patel, Ex.p.19(g) Sig. of Shankar Jyothi, Ex.p.19(h) Sig. of Narayana Reddy, Ex.p.20 Form No.16, Ex.p.20(a) Sig. of P.w.1, Ex.p.20(b) Sig. of Accused, Ex.p.20(c) & (d) Sig. of Panchas, Ex.p.20(e) Sig. of N.Vadivelu, Ex.p.20(f) Sig. of Sunil A.Patel, Ex.p.20(g) Sig. of Shankar Jyothi, Ex.p.20(h) Sig. of Narayana Reddy. Ex.p.21 Panchanama, Ex.p.21(a) Sig. of P.w.1, Ex.p.21(b) Sig. of Accused, Ex.p.21(c) & (d) Sig. of Panchas, Ex.p.21(e) Sig. of N.Vadivelu, Ex.p.21(f) Sig. of Sunil A.Patel, Ex.p.21(g) Sig. of Shankar Jyothi, Ex.p.21(h) Sig. of Narayana Reddy.60 61 CC.No.1210-2004
Ex.p.22 Statement of Accused, Ex.p.22(a) Sig. of P.w.1, Ex.p.22(b) Sig. of Accused, Ex.p.22© & (d) Sig. of Panchas, Ex.p.23 Notice, Ex.p.23(a) Sig. of P.w.1, Ex.p.23(b) Sig. of Accused, Ex.p.24 Covering Letter, Ex.p.24(a) Sig. of P.w.1, Ex.p.24(b) Sig. of Accused, Ex.p.25 & 26 A/c of Purchase Invoices, Ex.p.27 Reply, Ex.p.27(a) Sig. of P.w.1, Ex.p.27(b) Sig. of Accused Ex.p.28 Statement of Smt.Manjula, Ex.p.28(a) Sig. of Smt.Manjula, Ex.p.28(b) Sig. of P.w.1, Ex.p.29 Statement of K.N.Udaya Kumar, Ex.p.29(a) Sig. of P.w.1, Ex.p.29(b) Sig. of K.N.Udaya Kumar, Ex.p.29(c) Sig. of Narayana Reddy, Ex.p.30 & 31 Invoices, Ex.p.32 Statement of Rajesh, Ex.p.32(a) Sig. of P.w.1, Ex.p.32(b) Sig. of Rajesh, Ex.p.32(c) Sig. of Narayana Reddy, Ex.p.33 to 42 A/c of Invoices, Ex.p.33(a) to 42(a) Sig. of Rajesh, Ex.p.43 Statement Premraj, Ex.p.43(a) Sig. of P.w.1, Ex.p.43(b) Sig. of Premraj, Ex.p.43(c) Sig. of Shankar Jyothi, Ex.p.43(d) Sig. of Narayana Reddy, Ex.p.44 A/c of Invoice, Ex.p.44(a) Sig. of Premraj, Ex.p.45 to 50 Tests Reports, Ex.p.45(a) to 50(a) Sig. of P.w.1, Ex.p.45(b) to 50(b) Sig. of Accused, Ex.p.51 Statement of Viren B. Nanavathi, Ex.p.51(a) Sig. of Viren B. Nanavathi, Ex.p.52 A/c of Invoice, Ex.p.52(a) Sig. of Viren B. Nanavathi, Ex.p.53 Covering Letter, Ex.p.53(a) Sig. of P.w.11-Sudhir Vasudev Deshpande, Ex.p.54 Letter, Ex.p.54(a) Sig. of P.w.1, Ex.p.54(b) Sig. of N.Vadivelu, Ex.p.55 Covering Letter, Ex.p.55(a) Sig. of P.w.1, Ex.p.55(b) Sig. of Shankar Jyothi, Ex.p.56 Form No.16, 61 62 CC.No.1210-2004 Ex.p.56(a) Sig. of P.w.2, Ex.p.56(b) & (c) Sig. of Panchas, Ex.p.56(d) Sig. of N.Vadivelu, Ex.p.57 Panchanama, Ex.p.57(a) Sig. of P.w.2, Ex.p.57(b) & (c) Sig. of Panchas, Ex.p.57(d) Sig. of N.Vadivelu, Ex.p.58 Another Panchanama, Ex.p.58(a) Sig. of P.w.2, Ex.p.58(b) & (c) Sig. of Panchas, Ex.p.58(d) Sig. of N.Vadivelu, Ex.p.59 Permission Letter, Ex.p.60 St. of Proprietor of M/s.Adinath Medical & General Store, Ex.p.61 to 65 A/c of Invoices, Ex.p.63(a) & 65(a) Sig. of Hans Raj, Ex.p.65(b) Sig. of Premraj, Ex.p.66 Letter of Mr.Premraj, Ex.p.66(a) Sig. of Premraj, Ex.p.67 St. of Karnataka Bank Manager, Ex.p.67(a) Sig. of Bank Manager, Ex.p.68 & 69 A/c of Cheques, Ex.p.68(a) & 69(a) Sig. of P.w.12, Ex.p.70 St. of City Union Bank Ltd., Ex.p.70(a) Sig. of Manager, Ex.p.71 St. of Accused dt:5.4.04, Ex.p.71(a) Sig. of Accused, Ex.p.72 St. of Bank Manager, Ex.p.72(a) Sig. of Bank Manager, Ex.p.73 & 74 A/c of Cheques, Ex.p.75 to 77 Letters, Ex.p.75(a) to 77(a) Sig. of P.w.1, Ex.p.78 Sanction order, Ex.p.78(a) Sig. of P.w.13, Ex.p.79 Complaint, Ex.p.79(a) Sig. of P.w.1, Ex.p.80 X/c of Complaint, Ex.p.81 FIR, Ex.p.82 Report, Ex.p.83 Letter, Ex.p.84 Letter, Ex.p.85 Letter, Ex.p.86 St. of Accused, Ex.p.87 Permission Letter, Ex.p.88 St. of Hansaraj, Ex.p.88(a) Sig. of Hansaraj Ex.p.89 to 109 Photographs.
Material objects:-
Mo.1 & 2 - Two packets of clove oil I.P B.No.556 6 ml. D/M.9-02, Mo.1(a) & (b) Sig. of Panchas, Mo.1© Sig. of Accused, 62 63 CC.No.1210-2004 Mo.2(a) & (b) Sig. of Panchas, Mo.2© Sig. of Accused, Mo.3 & 4 - 2x12x20 gms., of Pottassium Permanganate IP B.No.358, D/M.5/03, Mo.5 & 6 - 2x1x400 gms., Boric Acid IP, B.No.565, repacked on 6/03, Mo.5(a) & (b) Sig. of Panchas, Mo.5© Sig. of Accused, Mo.6(a) & (b) Sig. of Panchas, Mo.6© Sig. of Accused, Mo.7 & 8 - 2 x 12 x20 gms., of Boric Acid IP, B.No.565 repacked on 5/03, Mo.9 & 10-2 x 12 x 25 gms., of Vaseline (White Petroleum Jelly IP) B.No.556 repacked on 12/02, Mo.11 & 12 - 2 x 12 x 20 gms., of Glycerin IP, B.No.565 D/M.5/03, Mo.11(a) & (b) Sig. of Panchas, Mo.11© Sig. of Accused, Mo.12(a) & (b) Sig. of Panchas, Mo.13 - 78x12x20gms of Potassium Permanganate I.P., B.No.358, repacked by M/s.Sandeep Pharma Pvt. Ltd., M/D:5/03, D/E:Use within 36 months from the date of packing, Mo.14 - Boric Acid I.P. 100gms 12x100gms XIIunits, B.No.565, M/D:7/03, D/E:use within 24 months from date of packing, Mfd. by M/s.Sandeep Pharma pvt. Ltd., Mumbai-18, Mo.15 - Boric Acid I.P. 400gms 15x100gms, B.No.565, M/D:7/03, D/E:use within 24 months from date of packing, Mfd. by M/s.Sandeep Pharma Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai-18, Mo.16 - Boric Acid I.P., 20gms 20xgmsx12x2, B.No.565, M/D:5/03, D/E:use within 24 months from date of packing, Mo.17 - Vaseline, White Petroleum Jelly I.P. 12x25gmsx43, B.No.556, M/D:12/02, D/E:use within 48 months Mgd by: Sandeep Pharma, Mumbai-18, Mo.18 - 5x12x6ml of Clove oil I.P. B.No.556, M/D:9/02, D/E:use within 48 months.
Mgd by: Sandeep Pharma, Mumbai-18, Mo.19 - 25gmx12x32 Vaseline White Petroleum Jelly, I.P. B.No.556, M/D:12/02, D/E:use within 48 months, Mgd by: Sandeep Pharma, Mumbai-18, Mo.20 - 40gmx12x28 units Vaseline White Petroleum Jelly, I.P., B.No.556, M/D:12/02, D/E:use within 48 months, Mgd by: Sandeep Pharma, Mumbai-18, Mo.21- Empty cartoons of boxes, stickers and labels, Mo.22 - Plastic carry bag containing boric acid powder which is taken out from the seized plastic gunny bag containing boric acid powder shown in Photographs.
Mo.23 - A small plastic cover containing empty cartoon boxes of boric acid is produced which is taken out from the plastic gunny bags-2Nos., which the photograph of it is produced. The cartoon boxes are marked as Mo.23. Mo.24 - One box containing rubber seals & Plastic bag containing filed Vaseline container without label Mo.25 - Plastic bag containing bottle caps of yellow & silver colour, Mo.26 - A small plastic cover containing potassium permanganate of BP grade Mfd., by Carus Chemicals company USA without B.No. taken out from one drum which is produced through photographs i.e., the sample powder. Mo.27 - The small cover containing empty glycerin bottles taken out from plastic bag which is produced in photographs. Mo.28 - 2 box containing boric acid which is produced through photographs.
Small portion is produced.63 64 CC.No.1210-2004
Mo.29 - One box containing Potassium permanganate outer covering package which is shown in photographs. The small sample portion is produced. Mo.30 - One box containing Vaseline labels which is produced through photographs. The sample of it is produced. Mo.31 - 17plastic gunny bags containing empty Vaseline containers produced through photographs. The sample of it is produced. Mo.32 - 2 box containing Boric Acid - 400gm I.P outer cover packing is produced through photographs. The sample of it is produced. Mo.33 - One box containing outer covering packing containing Boric Acid I.P., 20gms produced through photographs. The sample of it is produced. Mo.34 - One plastic bag containing white wax without label is produced through photographs. The sample of it is produced. Mo.35 - 2 carton cutter and one label cutter is produced through photographs.
One cutter is produced.
Mo.36 - 2 box containing Zinc Oxide I.P. 1000gm each, B.No.133, Mfd. by M/s.Sandeep Pharma Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai-18 is produced through photographs. The sample of it is produced. Mo.37 - One weighing (table balance) along with its units 100gm, 200gm, 500gm & 1Kg is produced through photographs. Mo.38 - One small Aluminium box containing printing letter blocks with printing ink is produced through photographs. Mo.39 - One plastic measuring Jar is produced through photographs. Mo.40 - One blank bill book of M/s.J.J.Daga & Co., No.21, 11th Cross, Malleshwaram, Bangalore-03. Mo.41 to 53 Seized drugs under Form No.16, Mo.41(a) to 43(a) Sig. of P.w.2, Mo.41(b) to 43(b) Sig. of Hansraj, Mo.41© to 43© Sig. of Panchas-Stephan, Mo.41(d) to 43(d) Sig. of Panchas-Tanveer Pasha.
ON BEHALF OF THE ACCUSED:
Witnesses & Documents: Nil.
(PUSHPAVATHI V.) PRESIDING OFFICER SPL.COURT FOR ECONOMIC OFFENCES, BANGALORE.
64 65 CC.No.1210-2004 23.09.2016 Complt.,- Sr.APP, Accused present. Accused - G.D.R., For Judgement. (Judgement pronounced in open court vide separate order) ORDER
Acting u/s.248(2) of the Cr.P.C., the accused is convicted for the offences U/s.18(a)(i) R/w.17B(c) & Sec.18(c) which is punishable u/s.27(c) & 27(b)(ii) of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940.
Acting u/s.248(1) of the Cr.P.C., the accused is acquitted for the offence U/s.18-A which is punishable u/s.28 of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940.
The bail bond of accused stands cancelled.
Call on hearing regarding sentence.
P.O., (Orders regarding Sentence pronounced in open court vide separate order) ORDER The accused shall under to imprisonment for 1 year and shall pay fine of Rs.5000/-, in default to under go imprisonment for period of 3 months for the offence punishable u/s.27© of the Old Drugs & Cosmetic Act, 1940.
The accused shall under to imprisonment for 1 month and shall pay fine of Rs.5000/-, in default to under go imprisonment for period of 3 months for the offence punishable u/s.27(b)(ii) of the Old Drugs & Cosmetic Act, 1940.
The samples of Mos.1 to 53 be released to the custody of complainant to dispose off the same in accordance with law after the appeal period is over.
P.O., 65