Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.22 seconds)Section 3 in The Drugs And Cosmetics Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
The Drugs And Cosmetics Act, 1940
State Of Maharashtra vs Jawaharlal Shamlal Ujawane on 15 June, 1978
7. Reliance was also placed by petitioners' counsel upon decision in
State of Maharashtra v. Jawaharlal Shamlal Ujawana rendered in 1979
Crl.L.J.530 to contend that Rule 46 of The Drugs and Cosmetics Rules,
1945 is mandatory and must be strictly followed and if breached, then the
proceedings under The Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 are vitiated.
Finally, it was contended with much vehemence by learned counsel for
petitioners that there is no justification whatsoever in continuing
petitioners' prosecution in the complaint in question as Government
Analyst Report does not describe the method adopted for carrying out the
requisite test and since statutory Rule 46 of The Drugs and Cosmetics
Rules, 1945 stands violated and petitioners' statutory right for getting the
sample re-tested stands defeated as no residual quantity of the sample is
available for re-checking, therefore, it is a fit case for quashing the
complaint in question and the impugned summoning order.
Amery Pharmaceuticals And Anr vs State Of Rajasthan on 16 March, 2001
9. Attention of this Court was drawn to Sub-Section 3 of Section 25
of The Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 to point out that the right to
challenge the test report of the Government Analyst is available to the
person from whom the sample was taken or the aggrieved party can move
an application before the concerned court to get the sample re-tested and
in the instant case, petitioners' had not filed any such application before
the trial court and so, the decisions relied upon on behalf of petitioners'
are of no avail to them. Lastly, it was submitted on behalf of respondent
that Government Analyst has followed validated procedures, as
prescribed in Schedule B read with Rule 124B of The Drugs and
Cosmetics Rules, 1945 for testing the sample in question and so
Government Analyst's report cannot be faulted with. Reliance was placed
upon Apex Court's decision in M/s. Amery Pharmaceuticals & Anr. V.
State of Rajasthan (2001) 4 SCC 382 to assert that the manufacture is not
entitled to get a copy of Government Analyst's report as a matter of right
because the sample in question was taken from the Retailer. Thus,
dismissal of this petition is sought.
State Of Haryana And Ors vs Ch. Bhajan Lal And Ors on 21 November, 1990
12. The parameters within which the inherent jurisdiction of this Court
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is to be exercised are well known. It needs
no reiteration that to quash criminal proceedings at its threshold, the
complaint or the FIR, as the case may be, has to be taken on its face value
Crl.M.C. No.5149-51/2006 Page 5
and thereafter, if it is found that the offence alleged is not made out or
that the violation of mandatory provision of law vitiates the entire
proceedings, then only criminal proceedings can be quashed. On this
aspect, pertinent observations of the Apex Court in State of Haryana v.
Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 are as under: -
Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Ghisa Ram on 23 November, 1966
11. Apex Court in Ghisa Ram (supra), Medicamen (supra) and Unique
Farmaid (supra), found that complaint was filed after the expiry of the
shelf life of the drug which deprived accused of valuable right of re-
testing, necessitating quashing of the proceedings. There is no doubt that
when mandatory procedure is contravened to the prejudice of accused,
then certainly, dismissal/quashing of the complaint can be sought but in
the instant case, there is no tangible basis to conclude at the threshold of
these proceedings that there is apparent contravention of Rule 46 of The
Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 or violation of Sub-Section 3 of
Section 25 of The Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 as petitioners' letters of
11th July, 15th July and 25th July, 2003 (Annexures- D to F) upon which
petitioners' case is based, are disputed and thus required to be tested at
trial. Therefore, it would be premature for this Court to rely upon
aforesaid correspondence of petitioners' to conclude that petitioners'
statutory right under Section 25 (3) of The Drugs and Cosmetics Act,
1940 stands violated.
Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
State Of Haryana vs Unique Farmaid (P.) Ltd. And Ors on 7 October, 1999
11. Apex Court in Ghisa Ram (supra), Medicamen (supra) and Unique
Farmaid (supra), found that complaint was filed after the expiry of the
shelf life of the drug which deprived accused of valuable right of re-
testing, necessitating quashing of the proceedings. There is no doubt that
when mandatory procedure is contravened to the prejudice of accused,
then certainly, dismissal/quashing of the complaint can be sought but in
the instant case, there is no tangible basis to conclude at the threshold of
these proceedings that there is apparent contravention of Rule 46 of The
Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 or violation of Sub-Section 3 of
Section 25 of The Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 as petitioners' letters of
11th July, 15th July and 25th July, 2003 (Annexures- D to F) upon which
petitioners' case is based, are disputed and thus required to be tested at
trial. Therefore, it would be premature for this Court to rely upon
aforesaid correspondence of petitioners' to conclude that petitioners'
statutory right under Section 25 (3) of The Drugs and Cosmetics Act,
1940 stands violated.
M/S. Medicamen Biotech Ltd. & Anr vs Rubina Bose, Drug Inspector on 13 March, 2008
6. At the hearing, it was strenuously contended by learned counsel for
petitioners that neither petitioner-company nor first and second petitioner,
who are the Directors of third petitioner-company were made aware of
Crl.M.C. No.5149-51/2006 Page 2
Government Analyst Report (Annexure-C) in time and thereby petitioners
had lost their valuable right of getting their sample re-tested. To contend
that infringement of statutory right under Sub-Section 3 of Section 25 of
The Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 vitiates the entire proceedings,
reliance was placed by petitioners' counsel upon decisions in Municipal
Corporation of Delhi v. Ghisa Ram AIR 1967 SC 970; State of Haryana
v. Unique Farmaid (P) Ltd. And Others v. (1999) 8 SCC 190 and
Medicament Biotech Limited and Another v. Rubina Bose, Drug
Inspector (2008) 7 SCC 196.
1