Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. During trial, the prosecution examined PW-1 Ajay Shrikhande and proved documents relating to sampling, dispatch, analyst's report and correspondence. The accused persons denied the allegations and claimed false implication.

4. The Court of ACJM, after hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, by the impugned judgment acquitted the accused persons/respondents herein of the charges leveled against them.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant/State submits that the learned trial Court erred in acquitting the accused persons/respondents despite clear evidence that the drug sample in question was declared "Not of Standard Quality" by the Government Analyst. He further submits that the prosecution has duly proved the sampling procedure and the analyst's report in accordance with law, and the batch number and label on the seized drug clearly connected it to the respondents i.e. manufacturer and the distribution chain. Despite the availability of sufficient and reliable evidence, the learned trial Court committed a grave error in acquitting the accused persons/respondents. Consequently, the impugned judgment of acquittal suffers from perversity and illegality and is liable to be set aside.

8. As regards the involvement of the accused persons/respondents in the offence in question, the testimony of PW-1 Ajay Shrikhande, Durg Inspector is very significant. He deposed that on 16.03.1988, he conducted an inspection of M/s Pandit Medical Stores and, after paying a sum of Rs. 44/- and obtaining a proper receipt, purchased a sample of "Paraquin Tablets" for the purpose of analysis. He stated that the said tablets were divided into four portions, duly sealed and labelled in accordance with the prescribed procedure, and the signatures of the vendor were obtained on the sealed packets. He further deposed that one portion of the sample was forwarded to the Government Analyst along with a memorandum in the prescribed form. He also deposed that he proved the report of the Government Analyst declaring the drug to be "Not of Standard Quality." According to him, a copy of the analyst's report was thereafter forwarded to the vendor, calling upon him to disclose the source from which the drug had been procured. He further stated that the vendor initially replied that the drug had been purchased from Renuka Medico, Raipur, but subsequently furnished photocopies of certain invoices claiming purchase from Karande Medical Stores, Rajnandgaon. He further deposed that he visited Karande Medical Stores for verification, however, no original vouchers or primary records were seized during the course of such inspection. In his cross- examination, he admitted that only photocopies of the invoices were produced, but no original records were seized from Karande Medical Stores, nor any specific entry was made regarding any refusal to produce the original documents. Thus, the evidence of PW-1 establishes that the sampling procedure was followed and that the sample was duly sent for analysis, and it also proves the report of the Government Analyst. However, his testimony discloses certain deficiencies in the investigation, particularly with regard to the verification and seizure of the original purchase records from the alleged source in the distribution chain. This omission creates a material gap in establishing the complete chain of supply and, therefore, weakens the prosecution case against the accused persons.

10. Thus, from the above evidence, it is quite vivid that although the sampling procedure was properly followed and that the Government Analyst's report established that the drug was not of standard quality, but serious deficiencies exist in the prosecution case with regard to establishing the chain of distribution of the alleged drug. Further, the photocopies of the invoices allegedly issued by Karande Medical Stores were not proved in accordance with law by leading primary evidence. The Drug Inspector neither seized the original records nor properly recorded any refusal to produce the same. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to establish, by reliable and admissible evidence, that the substandard drug supplied to M/s Pandit Medical Stores had in fact been sold by Karande Medical Stores or Bharat Medical Corporation, or that it had been manufactured by M/s Paras Pharmaceutical Product, as alleged. Moreover, the material on record indicates that the manufacturer was deprived of its valuable statutory right to seek re-analysis of the sample by the Central Drugs Laboratory. The prosecution also failed to produce the sample before the Court or to ensure re-analysis prior to the expiry of the drug. The burden lies upon the prosecution to establish the entire chain of sale and distribution through cogent and legally admissible evidence, but it failed to do so.