Karnataka High Court
Rakesh Agarwal vs State Of Karnataka By on 29 November, 2012
Author: Mohan Shantanagoudar
Bench: Mohan Shantanagoudar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAN SHANTANAGOUDAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.16061 OF 2012
BETWEEN:
RAKESH AGARWAL
MANAGING DIRECTOR
M/S MEDOZ PHARMACEUTICALS
PVT. LTD.
RESIDING AT GH-2
PLOT NO.-C-210 MDC
SECTOR 5 PANCHHKHULA
HARYANA STATE ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SANJAY A. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
DRUGS INSPECTOR
BIJAPUR CIRCLE
REPRESENTED BY SPP
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS
GUBLARGA
... RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. ANURADHA M. DESAI, ADDL. SPP)
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS
PENDING IN C.C.NO.2716/2009 BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL
CIVIL JUDGE JR. DIVISION AND JMFC-I BIJAPUR, IN SO FAR AS
THIS PETITIONER IS CONCERNED, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed praying for quashing of the proceedings in C.C.No.2716/2009 pending on the file of the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) and JMFC, first Court, Bijapur. Petitioner is accused No.2 in the said criminal case.
2. The records reveal that the legal sample of Tranal Tablets batch No.MZT-056, Manufacturing Date:
March, 2007, Expiry Date: February, 2009, manufactured by Messrs. Medoz Pharmaceuticals Private Limited, Chanal Majra, Himachal Pradesh was 3 taken on 06.02.2008 from the premises of Messrs. Modern Enterprises, Shop No.16 CTS No.1282, Ward No.II, Khadee Masjid Complex, New Vittal Mandir Road, Bijapur for test/analysis; on 26.08.2008, test analysis report was received to that effect that the samples of Tranal Tablets are 'not of standard quality' with respect to test for disintegration; a copy of its report was sent to Messrs. Modern Enterprises along with the notice under Section 18A and 18B of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940; one of the officials of the Drug Department seized 28x10 Tranal tablets from Messrs. Modern Enterprises and took the permission of the Court to retain the seized property in his safe custody; on being found that Messrs. Modern Enterprises has purchased the said drugs from Messrs. Woo Chem Pharma, Pharmaceutical Distributors, Indore, sought permission of the Drug Controller of the State of Karnataka to visit the place of manufacturers for the purpose of investigation on 4 08.07.2008; after completion of investigation, complaint is lodged. Now the process is issued.
3. Looking to the material on record, it is prima facie clear that the Drug Inspector who laid the search and seized the tablets did not follow the due procedure as required under Section 25(3) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940; there cannot be any dispute that the report sent by the Government Analyst shall be the evidence of facts stated therein and such evidence will be conclusive but the same would be subject to certain procedure to be adopted as contemplated under sub - Section 3 of Section 25 of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. Section 25 should be read with Section 18A of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. Thus the manufacturer of the Drug also should be furnished with the report of the State Government Analyst so as to enable the manufacturer to get it once again verified 5 from Central Drugs Laboratory, if it so chooses, in order to show to the Court that the State Government Analyst report need not be relied upon. Since such a report is not furnished to the manufacturer of the Drug i.e., petitioner, he has lost the chance of getting the samples verified with the Central Drugs Laboratory, which means an opportunity of being heard which ought to have been given to the petitioner as per the provisions of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 are not provided to him and consequently, procedure followed by the Drug Inspector vitiates the proceedings.
Moreover, local vendor of the drugs namely the proprietor of Messrs. Modern Enterprises is not made as one of the accused in the complaint. The complaint is lodged only against the manufacturers who are all from outside the Karnataka. The complaint is lodged at Bijapur in Karnataka State. Since it is open for the 6 petitioner and other accused to contend that Court below has no jurisdiction to proceed with the matter and as this Court finds that the entire procedure adopted by the authorities is bad in the eye of law, the proceedings are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.2716/2009 stand quashed.
In view of dismissal of the petition, I.A.No.1/2012 does nor survive for consideration, hence, same is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE.
NB*