Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 500 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Ajay Kumar Goyal

2004-04-05

H.R.PANWAR

body2004
Judgment H.R. Panwar, J.-Heard learned Public Prosecutor and Counsel for the accused respondents appearing on notice. 2. By Judgment and order dated 29th October, 2002, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh acquitted the accused respondents for the offence under Section 27(C) & (D) of the Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940 (for short ‘the Act’ hereinafter). Aggrieved by the order of acquittal, the State has filed leave to appeal. 3. I have carefully gone through the Judgment and order of the trial Court and also the record. I have perused the statement of prosecution witnesses as also the document placed on record. 4. Vide Exhibit.P/14, the Drug Inspector, Heeralal Bansal (PW. 4) took sample of electolin with neomycin suspension (for short ‘the drug’ hereinafter) from Shri Ajay Kumar s/o Mohanlal, Proprietor of M/s. Krishna Medical Agency, Hanumangarh Town. The sample was marked as SGNR/CBG/Feb 94/58. On the sample being analyzed by Central Drug Laboratory, Calcutta vide Exhibit.P/21, it was found that sample does not conform to claim in respect of neomycin content. A complaint was filed against accused respondents, Ajay Kumar, Proprietor of M/s. Krishna Medical Agency and also manufacturer of drug, M/s. J & J Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals. 5. The prosecution produced PW. 1 Subhash Chand, Drug Inspector, PW. 2 R.S. Thakur, Asstt. Drug Inspector, PW. 3 Chandra Bhushan Gupta, the Drug Inspector and PW. 4 Heeralal Bansal, the Drug Inspector who alleged to have taken the sample on 13.03.1995. 6. Apart from other things, the trial Court came to the conclusion that prosecution has failed to establish the case against accused respondents. Admittedly, the expiry period of the drug in question was July, 1994. PW . 4 Heeralal Bansal admitted in his statement that when the sample was taken by Exhibit.P/14, on the report itself , it has been mentioned that expiry date is July, 1994. On perusal of Exhibit.P/21, it reveals that Central Drug Laboratory, Calcutta vide its Report No. 27-2/94-P&P/RJ-5/7237 dated 02.03.1995 noticed that sample does not conform to claim in respect of neomycin content. PW . 4 Heeralal Bansal in his statement admitted that sample was analyzed after about nine months from the date of its expiry. On perusal of Exhibit.P/21, it reveals that Central Drug Laboratory, Calcutta vide its Report No. 27-2/94-P&P/RJ-5/7237 dated 02.03.1995 noticed that sample does not conform to claim in respect of neomycin content. PW . 4 Heeralal Bansal in his statement admitted that sample was analyzed after about nine months from the date of its expiry. On perusal of Exhibit.P/21 the report from the Central Drugs Laboratory, Calcutta, it reveals that at the time of receiving the sample, as against the caption number of sample, the word ‘nil’ has been written, whereas, at the time of taking sample, the sample number was marked as noticed above. 7. Faced with this situation, the prosecution by communication dated 15.02.1996 requested the Director, Central Drugs Laboratory, Calcutta for confirmation of the day on which the drug in question was analyzed. A report received from the Central Drugs Laboratory, Calcutta with reference to the letter dated 15.02.1996 stated that sample was tested before the date of expiry of the sample. On careful examination of Exhibit.P/7, it no-where reveals that on what date, the sample was analyzed. On the contrary, Exhibit.P/7 is contrary to Exhibit.P/21 which in clear terms is of dated 02.03.1995. The trial Court relying on the Exhibit.P/21 held that sample was tested after its period of expiry. Even the manufacturer was not informed of the sample and its result before the expiry period of the sample. Section 18(A) of the Act provides that every person, not being the manufacturer of a drug or cosmetic or his agent for the distribution thereof , shall, if so required, disclose to the Inspector the name, address and other particulars of the person from whom he acquired the drug or cosmetic. From perusal of record, it is clear that in compliance of Section 18(A) of the Act, Respondent No. 1 informed to the Drug Inspector, the name of manufacturer, viz., Respondent No. 4. Vide Exhibit.P/27, one sample drawn for test and the copy of analyzed report of Central Drug Laboratory, Calcutta was sent to the manufacturer, Respondent No. 4 on 18.03.1995. Although the prosecution witnesses admitted that report was given to the manufacturer on 22.03.1995. Be that as it may, at any rate, the sample which was taken from the accused respondent was not analyzed before its expiry period or rather it was analyzed much after the period of expiry of the drug i.e., on 02.03.1995. 8. Although the prosecution witnesses admitted that report was given to the manufacturer on 22.03.1995. Be that as it may, at any rate, the sample which was taken from the accused respondent was not analyzed before its expiry period or rather it was analyzed much after the period of expiry of the drug i.e., on 02.03.1995. 8. Having scrutinized the entire evidence, I do not find any error in the order of the trial Court. Hence, it is not a fit case to grant leave to appeal. Leave refused. The application seeking leave to appeal is, therefore, rejected.