Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1937 (MAD)

A. Subramaniam Proprietor v. Drugs Inspector

2011-04-06

K.CHANDRU

body2011
Judgment :- 1. This matter came to be posted under the special orders of the Hon'ble Chief Justice. 2. The first petition is filed one A.Subramaniam, Proprietor of M/s.Seetharam Surgicals at Samusigapuram, Virudhunagar District. The second petition is filed by one Petchimuthu, Proprietrix of M/s.Muthu Enterprises. In both the Original Petitions, the challenge is made to the show cause notice dated 7.5.2010 issued by the Drugs Inspector, Perambur Range. 3. Both the original Petitions were admitted on 21.6.2010. Pending the Original Petitions, this Court granted an interim stay on the same day. The submission made before the Court was that the materials, which were alleged to have manufactured by the two petitioners were actually manufactured by one M/s.SONTEX ROLLED BANDAGE WORKS, Indore and in respect of the same set of allegations, the firm was fined and licences were suspended and the proceedings are continued to be initiated by the Department. 4. Aggrieved by the interim order, the learned Public Prosecutor has filed a counter affidavit sworn to by the respondent dated 21.10.2010. In the counter affidavit, it was stated that the complaint was received by the Department from one B.Sekar, Medical Pharmacist regarding the supply of Bleached Gauze cloth from Chatrapati. On further investigation, samples were obtained and sent for analysis to the Government Analyst (Drugs), Drugs Testing Laboratory, Chennai 6. The goods were not only upto the standard but also unfit for use by any chemical laboratory. On joint inspection made on the premises of Sontex Rolled Bandage Works at Indore, it was found that not only they have not maintained the proper Register but also that it was transported with vague vill by a carrier, which was also found to be fabricated. Actually these goods were manufactured by the two firms of the petitioners and supplied in the name of Madhya Pradesh firm. Therefore, it was stated that only a further investigation will unravel the real truth. The depth of the crime is voluminous, which may affect the society. Therefore, pending that, show cause notice cannot be interdicted by this Court. 5. In the present case, a perusal of the show cause notice clearly shows that it was issued pursuant to the power vested under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The depth of the crime is voluminous, which may affect the society. Therefore, pending that, show cause notice cannot be interdicted by this Court. 5. In the present case, a perusal of the show cause notice clearly shows that it was issued pursuant to the power vested under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. Under the provisions of the Act, more particularly Section 18(a)(1), a drug which is not of a standard quality or is misbranded, adulterated or spurious can be prohibited by the State Government and no person either by himself or any other person can manufacture or sell or distribute such product. Similarly under Section 17-B (e) of the Act, spurious drugs are defined and a person, who is purportedly to be a manufacturer but does not send the actual manufacture of the product is deemed to be dealing with spurious drugs. 6. Therefore, the Drug Inspector had only pointed out that for violation of these two provisions, the petitioners are merely asked for an explanation to show cause as to why further action cannot be taken against the petitioner. The Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 apart from the penalties provided therein also provides for confiscation of such contraband goods. Under Section 31 of the Act, confiscation would be followed by a conviction under the Act. Therefore, at this stage the petitioner's challenge to the show cause notice, that too invoking Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is clearly misconceived and not warranted under the circumstances of the case. It is also not clear as to how Section 482 of Cr.P.C can be invoked for impugning the show cause notice. It is issued pursuant to the statutory power vested on the Drug Inspector. The criminal case has not been set in motion and the petitioners have not received any process from any criminal court so as to invoke the jurisdiction of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The attempt made by the petitioner to forestall the investigation is not permitted and this Court cannot be a party to continue the interim order in favour of the petitioners, thereby stalling further action by the Drug Inspector. It is for the petitioners to make appropriate explanation to the Drug Inspector and satisfy him that they have not violated any provisions of the Drug and Cosmetics Act. 7. In view of the above, both the Criminal Original Petitions stand dismissed. It is for the petitioners to make appropriate explanation to the Drug Inspector and satisfy him that they have not violated any provisions of the Drug and Cosmetics Act. 7. In view of the above, both the Criminal Original Petitions stand dismissed. The connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.