Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 54 (RAJ)

Jitendra Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

2018-01-03

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2018
JUDGMENT Sandeep Mehta, J. - By way of the instant miscellaneous petition preferred under section 482 CrPC, 1973 the petitioners herein have approached this court seeking quashing of the proceedings of the complaint No.47/2013 pending in the court of learned CJM, Jalore for the offences under Sections 18(a)(i), 18(a)(vi) read with sections 16(1) (a), 17(c), 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. 2. I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel Mr. Pradeep Shah and learned Public Prosecutor and have gone through the impugned complaint as well as the other documents placed on record of the petition. The petitioners seek quashsing of the proceedings of the complaint on the ground that they were denied fair opportunity of challenging the report of Government Analyst opining that the drug in question was substandard. 3. It was contended that the requisite notice in terms of section 23 and 25 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act was not given to the petitioners timely and thus, they were deprived of a fair and reasonable opportunity to challenge the said report by taking appropriate steps for getting the reserved sample examined from the Central Drugs Laboratory. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has filed reply to the petition annexing therewith a copy of the Government Analyst's report dated 08.03.2011, which indicates that the manufacturing date of the disputed drug was February 2010 and the expiry date thereof was January 2013. The Food Inspector collected sample of the drug on 27.01.2011. The sample was received by the Government Analyst on 04.02.2011 who analysed the drug and reported on 08.03.2011 that the same was sub-standard. As per the document Annexure-R/2, which is the reply given by the manufacturer being Manja Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. To the notice given by the Drug Inspector, it is apparent that the information regarding the drug being sub-standard along with a copy of the Government Analyst's report was received by the manufacturer in the month of April 2011. The said notice was responded vide letter Annexure-R/2 dated 09.06.2011, wherein there is no indication that the manufacturer desired to challenge the report of the Government Analyst by getting the reserved sample sent to the Central Drugs Laboratory. 5. In view of these admitted facts, manifestly, the petitioners were apprised of the Government Analyst's report well before the expiry date of the drug in question. 5. In view of these admitted facts, manifestly, the petitioners were apprised of the Government Analyst's report well before the expiry date of the drug in question. Admittedly, they never took any step to challenge the report of the Government Analyst and hence, they cannot claim denial of the right to challenge the report of Government Analyst as per section 25(3) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. 6. Thus, the instant miscellaneous petition is dismissed being as devoid of merit.