Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 750 (RAJ)

Medical Agencies v. State

2022-03-04

FARJAND ALI

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. Instant criminal misc. petition has been preferred on behalf of petitioner-firm M/s Shree Medical Agencies, seeking quashing of the proceedings in Cr. Regular Case No.6/2013 (No.294/2012): Drugs Controller Vs Medical Agency & others, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pratapgarh for offences under Sections 16(a), 17(c), 17(B)(d), 18(a)(l)(vi)(b) and 27(c) (d) of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act 1940 and Rules of 1945. 2. The above proceedings were initiated at the behest of officers of Drugs Controller, Pratapgarh 23.04.2009 wherein samples of the drug Sulphadimidine was seized from shop of the petitioner. As per report of the Public Analyst dated 05.02.2010, the sample was found to be sub-standard. The expiry date of the aforesaid drug was April 2010 but the result of the Public Analyst's report was conveyed to the petitioner after lapsing of the expiry date of the drug and as such, the right of the petitioner to challenge the report of the Public Analyst has been infringed. Thus, it is prayed that the proceedings pending against the petitioner may be quashed on this sole count. 3. The manufacturer of the drug too preferred a criminal misc. petition (No. 1819/2015) before this Court for quashing of the proceedings against them and a coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 03.01.2018 has allowed the petition and the proceedings qua them have been quashed. The coordinate Bench while dealing with the issue observed as under: "Mr. Vineet Jain, learned counsel representing the petitioners, urged that sample of the drug named Sulphadimidine, manufactured by the petitioners, was seized from the vendor at Pratapgarh on 23.04.2009. Expiry date of the drug, as per the admitted prosecution case, was April 2010. The Government Analyst reported the sample to be sub-standard vide laboratory report dated 05.02.2010. The petitioners being the manufacturers were conveyed the report of the Government Analyst vide Drug Inspector's letter 07.07.2011, by which time, expiry date of the drug had lapsed. Thus, as per Mr. Jain, the petitioners' right to challenge the Government Analyst's report available under Section 25(3) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act was infringed. He, thus, urged that the proceedings of the complaint are liable to be quashed qua the petitioners. Thus, as per Mr. Jain, the petitioners' right to challenge the Government Analyst's report available under Section 25(3) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act was infringed. He, thus, urged that the proceedings of the complaint are liable to be quashed qua the petitioners. Learned Public Prosecutor though formally opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioner's counsel, but he too was not in position to dispute the above stated factual position that the petitioners were, for the first time, informed about the Government Analyst's report on 07.07.2011, by which time, the expiry date of the drug in question had lapsed. Since the petitioners were notified of the report of the Government Analyst indicating that the drug was substandard well after expiry date thereof, apparently, the statutory right available to them to challenge the Government Analyst's report as per Section 25 (3) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act has been infringed beyond redemption. Thereby and in view of the law as laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Medicamen Biotech Limited & Anr. Vs. Rubina Bose, Drug Inspector reported in (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 20, allowing the proceedings of the impugned complaint to be continued against the petitioners would be nothing short of gross abuse of process of law." 4. Since the issue involved in the instant petition and in the above mentioned case is identical in nature, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get the same treatment. 5. Accordingly, this criminal misc. petition is allowed and the entire criminal proceedings pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pratapgarh, being Cr. Regular Case No.6/2013 (294/2012): Drugs Controller Vs Medical Agency & others, for offences under Sections 16(a), 17(c), 17(B)(d), 18(a)(l)(vi)(b) and 27(c)(d) of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act 1940 and Rules of 1945 qua the petitioner are hereby quashed and set aside.