Madras High Court
Jackson Laboratories Pvt. Ltd vs Union Of India on 14 March, 2024
Author: T.V.Thamilselvi
Bench: T.V.Thamilselvi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 14.03.2024
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI
CRL.OP No. 28531 of 2022
1 JACKSON LABORATORIES PVT. LTD
THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR JUGAL KISHORE
S/O. CHAMAN LAL FACTORY AT NO.22-24
MAJITHA ROAD BYE PASS AMRITSAR 143001
PUNJAB STATE.
2 JUGAL KISHORE
S/O. CHAMAN LAL FACTORY AT NO.22-24
MAJITHA ROAD BYE PASS AMRITSAR 143001 NO.
13 JOSHI COLONY THE MALL AMRITSAR PUNJAB 143001.
...petitioner
Vs.
1 UNION OF INDIA
REP BY ITS DRUG INSPECTOR DR.S. GOPINATH
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DRUGS CONTROLLER
(INDIA) CENTRAL DRUGS STANDARD CONTROL
ORGANIZATION SOUTH ZONE 2
...Respondents
PRAYER : This petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, to call
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2
for the records in C.C.No.789/2021 pending on the file of the Metropolitan
Magistrate -IV Saidapet Chennai and quash the same.
For petitioner : Mr.C.R.Gokulvisvas
for Mr.T.Elumalai
For Respondent : Mr.C.Kulanthaivel
ORDER
The petitioner herein filed this petitionto call for the records in C.C.No.789/2021 pending on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate -IV Saidapet Chennai and quash the same.
2. The case of the prosecution is that first Petitioner in a Registered Medicine Manufacture Company and the second Petitioner in the Managing Director of that said Company. On 06.02.2018 the Respondent / complainant inspected Drug Warehouse Tamil Nadu Medical Services Corporation Ltd. K.K Nagar, Chennai-78 and drawn sample of Drug Acyclovir dispensible tablets IP 200 mg Batch No.T-1449 date of manufacture July 2017 date of Expiry June 2019 which was manufactured by the 1st Petitioner and the same was sent to the Government Analyst, Central Drugs Testing Laboratory (CDTL), No. 37, Naval Hospital Road, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3 Periamet, Chennai-600003 for test or analysis, as a part of procedure as required under Section 23 (4) (i) read with Rule 57 of Act and Rules, after the complainant received test report in Form -13 on 17.04.2018 from CDTL Chennai Vide report no. CDTL/FORM- 18/D/709/2017-18 dated 03.04.2018, in that report it is stated that the sample drug declared as "Not of standard quality since the sample does not conform to IP standards with respect to test for disintegration (does not comply the During of within 3 mins instead of 7 Mins and 44 secs which takes more than 4 mins 44 secs to disintegrated) after the receipt of the said test report the complainant send notice to The Ware House In-Charge, Tamil Nadu Medical Services Corporation Ltd., K. K. Nagar, Chennai in its vide letter No 7- 43(DS)/S2/2018/21/NSQ/301 dated 24.04.2015 and Further advised to stop distribution of the said drug with immediate effect and withdraw the stocks from the dispensaries where it is distributed and submit the reconciliation data. Subsequently filed private complaint against that petitioners for the alleged offence U/s 18(6)(1) R/W section 16 and punishable section 27 (d) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 29.08.2017 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4 the said drug was taken to test for analysis by the empanelled laboratory of the Tamil Nadu Medical Services Corporation Ltd and submitted the report only in 3 days. Wherein the above same drug was cleared all the test and analysis including the disintegration period of the above drug within a minute. But after six months of period the respondent takes the same drug for the very same batch of drug and also not showing any interest to maintain the samples in the temperature 25 degree. Further, he submits that portion of the above samples were not properly maintained in the temperature of 25 degree for two months. Hence, the test report submitted by the Government analyst, Central Drugs Testing Laboratory does not reliable and accurate. Further, the alleged has not been sent to the laboratory within a stipulated period, beyond 60 days it was sent for analysis due to which there might have been quality differs. In spite of suitable reply given by the petitioner it has not been properly considered by the respondent Hence, he prays to quash C.C No. 780 of 2021.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) submits that authorities followed the procedure while sending the drug to the laboratory and thereafter it was found that drug was not standard quality hence the authorities issued notice and initiated the proceedings against the company https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5 based on the laboratory report.
5. Heard both sides.
6. Records perused. The learned counsel for the petitioner claimed that drug sample was sent to the laboratory after 60 days for analysis on the other side prosecution submits that they sent the drug as per procedure. Whether the procedure was properly followed by the authorities or not cannot be decided at this stage, it is matter for trial. If at all any defence, available the petitioners can work out their remedy before the Trial Court. However, the second petitioner is aged about 90 years, his appearance is ordered to be dispensed with.
7. In the result, this petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequentially, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
14.03.2024 pbl To The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6 T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.
pbl CRL.OP No. 28531 of 2022 & Crl.MP. Nos. 17503 & 17504 of 2022 14.03.2024 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis