Karnataka High Court
M/S Perennial Medicare vs State At The Instance Of on 24 May, 2022
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MAY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2830 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
1. M/S PERENNIAL MEDICARE
SHAMTI
SOLAN
HIMACHAL PRADESH-173212
REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER
SRI VINOD GUPTA
S/O SRI BENI PRASAD GUPTA
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS
2. SRI VINOD GUPTA
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS
S/O SRI BENI PRASAD GUPTA
PARTNER OF M/S PERENNIAL
MEDICARE SHAMTI
SOLAN
HIMACHAL PRADESH-173212
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI DESU REDDY G, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE AT THE INSTANCE OF
DRUGS INSPECTOR
KOLAR CIRCLE
KOLAR - 563 102
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI S.VISWAMURTHY, HCGP)
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C
PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN
S.C.NO.87/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE, KOLAR.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
Petitioner No.1 is a registered partnership firm and is granted with a valid licence by the Drugs Controlling cum Licensing Authority to manufacture Moclave (Amoxycillin and Potassium clavulanate for oral suspension I.P.) for Royal Lab. Petitioner No.2 is the partner of petitioner No.1 firm, who manages the business of the firm.
2. On 18.10.2012, the Drugs Inspector, Kolar Circle, Kolar drew the sample of the legal portion of Moclave for the purpose of test and analysis. The said sample was sent to the Drugs Testing Laboratory. The Laboratory furnished the report on 03.07.2013, declaring that the subject drug is not of standard quality with respect to identification for Clavulanic acid. 3
3. The Drugs Inspector filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., for contravening the provisions of Section 18 (a) (i) read with Section 17-B (d) of the Act which is punishable under section 27 (c) and 27
(d) of the Act.
4. The learned Magistrate after perusing the complaint, took cognizance of the aforesaid offence alleged against the petitioner. Taking exception to the same, this petition is filed.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the complaint was lodged by respondent No.1 after expiry of the potentiality of the subject drug thus depriving the Petitioners of their valuable right to cause the subject drug for further test and analysis as specified under Section 25 (4) of the Act since the report submitted by the Laboratory is not a conclusive proof as specified under Section 25(3) of the Act.
4
6. The learned HCGP appearing for the state submits that the petitioners having manufactured the subject drug which is not of standard quality have committed the aforesaid offences and the learned magistrate has rightly taken cognizance.
7. I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for parties.
8. The Drug Inspector on 18.10.2012 drew the sample of Moclave (Amoxyclillin and Potassium clavulanate for oral suspension I.P) and the subject drug was sent to Laboratory for test and analysis on the same day and the Laboratory in turn has submitted the report on 08.07.2013 declaring that the said Drug is not of standard quality.
9. Section 25 (3) of the Act specifies that any report submitted by the government analyst shall be conclusive unless the person from whom the sample has been taken notifies the inspector or the court before which any proceedings in respect of the sample is pending that 5 he intends to adduce as evidence in controversion of the report.
10. Section 25 (4) of the Act specifies that unless the sample has been tested or analysed in the Central Drugs Laboratory, the accused is given the right to cause the sample of the drugs in question for further test or analysis. The potentiality of the subject drug expired in January 2014 and the complaint was lodged on 21.07.2014. Therefore, the accused is deprived of his valuable right for making an application before the learned magistrate to cause the sample drug in question for further testing or analysis to the central drugs laboratory as specified under section 25(3) and 25(4) of the Act. Hence, continuation of criminal proceedings against the Petitioners will be a futile exercise and abuse of process of law since the possibility of conviction of these petitioners is remote and bleak.
6
11. In view of the above, the taking cognizance of aforesaid offences by the learned Magistrate is not sustainable in law.
Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) The criminal petition is allowed.
ii) The impugned proceedings in S.C.No.87/2016, pending on the file of I Additional District and Sessions Judge at Kolar, is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE MR