Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 223 (PNJ)

Glaxo India Ltd. v. Inder Ram

2002-02-19

R.C.KATHURIA

body2002
Judgment R.C.Kathuria, J. 1. The petitioners seek questions of complaint dated 27.9.2000 (Annexure P.1) filed under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 120-B I.P.C. by Inder Ram, respondent-complainant against the petitioners-accused and the summoning order dated 9.2.2001 (Annexure - P.9) passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra and the subsequent proceedings taken. 2. On 1.7.2000, Inder Ram, complainant visited the premises of Kurukshetra Stockists Amit Pharmaceuticals, Salarpur Road, Kurukshetra (petitioner No. 5) and purchased medicine for sheep, namely Zanil 1000 ml. (Oxyclozanide oral Suspension) B-P (Vet.) Batch No. S.W. 001 with manufacturing date of July 1999 and expiry date of June 2002 @ Rs. 305.90 per bag bottle vide receipt No. 1507 dated 1.7.2000 for Rs. 2,080/-. Subsequently, the complainant found that weight as informed by petitioner No. 5 of all the bag bottles was not accurate as there was difference of 1.158 grams per 1000 gram in one bottle, 0.922 gram in other bottle, 0.956 gram in third bottle and 0.892 gram in fourth bottle including the weight of the empty bottle. In this manner the complainant had noticed that the accused played fraud upon him for which a legal notice dated 6.7.2000 was sent to the petitioners by him. Reply dated 11.7.2000 was received wherein it was stated that the aforesaid medicine had been manufactured by petitioner No. 3 and was purchased by petitioner No. 5 from petitioner No. 4, who had marketed the same. 3. In support of the allegations made in the complaint, Inder Ram appeared as PW-1 and tendered documents, copy of the bill as Ex. C1, legal notice Ex. C.2, reply Ex. C.3 and photographs Ex. C.4 and Ex. C.5. On the basis of evidence led by the complainant, the learned Additional Chief Magistrate, Kurukshetra, as per order dated 9.2.2001 found sufficient ground for proceeding against the petitioner-accused under Section 420 read with Section 120-B I.P.C. It is under these circumstances, the complaint and the summoning order have been sought to be quashed by way of this petition. 4. I have heard learned counsel representing the parties at length. 5. The parameters with regard to quashing of the complaint and the subsequent proceedings taken therein are well settled. Primarily this power is vested to give effect to an order passed by the Court, to prevent abuse of process of the Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. I have heard learned counsel representing the parties at length. 5. The parameters with regard to quashing of the complaint and the subsequent proceedings taken therein are well settled. Primarily this power is vested to give effect to an order passed by the Court, to prevent abuse of process of the Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. While exercising this power the Court is primarily guided by the fact that power has been vested in the Court to advance the cause of justice. Where any effort is made to use and abuse the instrument of Court so as to result in injustice, the Court is duty bound to check and prevent that abuse. In order to find out whether any offence is disclosed in a given case, the complaint and the supporting material led by the complainant has to be scrutinised. Scrutiny of the evidence led in support of the complaint is to be made at this stage solely for the purpose of finding out whether prima facie, allegations made in the complaint and the evidence led in support thereof do or do not constitute the offence in respect of which cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate. At this stage evidence is not to be examined meticulously so as to find out whether the trial would end in conviction or acquittal. 6. Keeping in view the above legal position in the present case, the relevant part of the statement of the complainant made in the Court has to be noted which reads as under : "Stated that I purchased six "Dibas" of medicines for my sheep and goats. Out of which four Dibas were Zanil and other two Dibas were of different name. I had purchased these Dibas from Pipli National Medical Shop. I had got prepared pacca bill which is Ex. C-1. I had paid Rs. 2080/- for the medicines. When I brought the Dibas to my home I suspected that the medicines are more or less in the Dibas. Though on the label it was written as 1000 MI. The Dibas contained 922, 956 and 892 grams. I went to the shop from where I purchased the medicine and asked him for changing the Dibas but he did not agree and told him that whatever he wants to say he should say to the Company because he does not manufacture the medicines. The Dibas contained 922, 956 and 892 grams. I went to the shop from where I purchased the medicine and asked him for changing the Dibas but he did not agree and told him that whatever he wants to say he should say to the Company because he does not manufacture the medicines. He only sells the same. I had got the Dibas weighed accurately. I sent notice to the company, a copy of which is Ex. C-2. I received a reply from the Company and they put the blame and the manufacturing Company and further wrote that they only bring the medicines in the market and they further wrote that they would come for investigation but no body from the company came to him. Reply Ex. C-3. He got the Dibas photographed. A copy of which is Ex. C4 and C-5. Company has cheated me. They have cheated the country because medicines are said in the country. I pray with folded hands that summons may be issued to the accused and they may be awarded harsh punishment." Reading of the above statement reveals that the entire case of the complainant is based on the fact that the weight of the medicine contained in the four bottles in the box was found to be less when he got them weighed. As there is marginal difference in the weight found by the complainant on weighment as compared to what was mentioned on the Dibba, it is necessary to notice as to what was the measure of this weighment. The complainant had not explained this fact in the complaint of his statement. No document has been placed on record to support from where the weight was re-checked so as to find out the accuracy of the weighment. This aspect was not, taken notice of by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra when he passed the impugned order. The very foundation on which the allegation of cheating was based was not supported by any acceptable material on record. Therefore, it is clearly spelled out that no case was made out against the petitioners-accused on the basis of allegation levelled in the complaint coupled with the statement of the complainant recorded and the material produced on record. The very foundation on which the allegation of cheating was based was not supported by any acceptable material on record. Therefore, it is clearly spelled out that no case was made out against the petitioners-accused on the basis of allegation levelled in the complaint coupled with the statement of the complainant recorded and the material produced on record. 7 Other submission raised by the counsel for the petitioners is that the medicine in the bottle was sold in volume and not by weight in grams but the accusations against the petitioners had been made in the complaint that the medicine was supplied less in weight in grams. There is merit in the stand taken because factually the specification indicated the volume in ml. and not in grams. 8. I, therefore, accept the petition and quash the complaint and subsequent proceedings taken against the petitioners-accused in this case.