Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 704 (PNJ)

Goyal And Company v. State Of Punjab

2008-03-17

M.M.KUMAR, SABINA

body2008
Judgment M.M.Kumar, J. 1. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for quashing order dated 2.1.2007 (Annexure P.8) passed by the Secretary, Health and Family Welfare, Punjab, Chandigarh, respondent upholding the order dated 13.7.2007 (Annexure P.6) passed by the State Drugs Licensing Authority cum Director Health Services. Punjab, respondent No. 1. A further prayer for restoration of drug Licence of the petitioner has also been made. 2. In his order dated 13.7.2001, respondent No. 3, has noticed that the Inspectors of Ludhiana and Amritsar namely S/Shri Sanjeev Kullar and Rajesh Suri inspected the premises of the petitioner on 8.5.2007 in the presence of Incharge of the petitioner firm namely Shri Deep Kumar and one independent witness namely Shri Mandeep Dhawan under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (for brevity the Act); and Drugs and Cosmetic Rules, 1945 (for brevity the Rules). Accordingly a show cause notice dated 13.6.2007 was issued to the petitioner for explaining the reasons for contravening various provisions or the Act. The reply was round to be unsatisfactory and an after thought. It was concluded that the petitioner-firm has indulged in sale of prohibited drugs. The prohibition has been imposed by the Government of India on the sale or these drugs vide notifications dated 23.7.1983 and 24.8.2001. The samples were tested vide drug sample No. ASR 59 of 2007. A perusal of the order shows that the provisions of Rule 65(5)(3) of the 1945 Rules and Section 26(A) of the Act have been violated. A number of other violations are stated to have been committed resulting in violation of provisions or Section 18(A) of the Act. 3. The petitioner has also found to be selling spurious drugs as per Section 7-B of the Act. It has been found that tablet Cavisova was tested and it was not found to be of standard quality by the Government Analyst, Punjab, Chandigarh vide his test report No. 1082 dated 8.6.2007 for the following reasons: i) the identification test for Diazepam found is negative ii) the contents of Diphenhydramine Hcl found 9.77 mgm/u.c. tab against the label claim of 50 mg per u.c. tablet and Diazepam zero mg.u.c. Tab. against the label claim of 5 mg/u.c. Tab., iii) the sample referred to above is misbranded under the provisions of Drugs & Cosmetics Act 1940 and rules thereunder due to the fact that Expiry date is not given on the label. It is also covered under the definition of spurious drugs as defined under Section 17B of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 and further Its manufacturing, sale a distribution is prohibited under Section 26(A) of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940, vide Govt. of India, gazette notification No. GSR 169(E:) dated 12.3.2001, hence you have contravened Section 18(a)(i) and 26a of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940. 4. There are other numerous violations indicated in the order which only go to show that the petitioner has been contravening the provision of the Act and Rules. The order passed by the State Drugs Licensing Authority (P-6) further points out that the drugs seized from the petitioner by the Police Department were definitely meant to sell for addiction as they were habit forming drugs. Those drugs were misused by the youngsters and public at large. The concluding para of the order reads thus: In view of the above you have found committing serious contraventions under Section 18(a)(i) read with Sections 17B, 26A and Rules 65(5)(1), 65(5)(3) and 65(6) of Drugs & Cosmetics Act 1940 and Rules 1945 and you have become habitual for contravening the various provisions of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act 1940 and Rules made thereunder and found to be deeply indulged in the unethical sale and purchase of habit forming/addiction causing drugs due to their misuse. It is pertinent to mention over here that the shop premises were locked/sealed by the Punjab Police Department and was jointly inspected on 20.3.2003 by the Punjab Police and officer of the State Drugs Control Department Police Department registered an FIR No. 57 dated 12.3.2003 under Section 22/61/X5 N.D.P.S. Act and other sections of IPC were also imposed on you. A large quantity of the drugs containing one or more ingredients of Psychotropic drugs were recovered from your possession as perusal of the records. A large quantity of the drugs containing one or more ingredients of Psychotropic drugs were recovered from your possession as perusal of the records. It is beyond any doubt that the drugs seized from your possession previously by the police department alongwith the officers of the Drugs Control department and now by the State Drugs Control Department are definitely meant to sell for addiction due to their habit forming nature and their misuse by the youngsters and public at large. The frequent, blind and irrational use of such types of preparations can lead to grave consequences and may result irremediable poisoning the life and soul of innocent people of our national thus destroying the very fibre of our society particularly the young generation which is being contaminated by the addiction causing, preparation in a quite alarming proportion. The department cannot allow such persons to play havoc with the life of innocent peoples. 5 On farther appeal to the Secretary, Health and Family welfare-respondent No. 2, the order passed by respondent No. 3 has been upheld by observing that the licence of the petitioner has been rightly cancelled on account of irregularities pointed out in the show cause notices as well as on account of filing unsatisfactory/after thought reply. The appellate authority has further observed that the petitioner has been found guilty of committing serious offences as it had stocks for sale and distribution of Spurious, banned and habit forming drugs which are allegedly misused for the purpose of addiction. In view or the above, we do not find any legal infirmity in the impugned order and uphold the same, however, we grant liberty to the petitioner to move appropriate application under Rule 66 of the Rules for such seeking permission for disposal of medicines/drugs in stock. Application is filed, then the same be dealt with in accordance with law. It is made clear that grant of liberty shall not be treated as grant of permission and the authority shall be free to decide the same according to law.