STADMED PRIVATE LTD. Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Private complaint under Sec. 200 of Cr.P.C. was filed by the respondent for contravention of Sec. 18(a)(i) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (for short " Drugs Act ") punishable under Sec. 27(d) of the said Act, alleging that the subject drug which was manufactured by the petitioner was sent by the drug inspector concerned to the Government analyst for analysis in Form-No.13 as specified under Rule 46 of the Rules. The Government analyst submitted a report dtd. 22/1/2014, declaring that the subject drug manufactured by the petitioners- accused as not of the standard quality and the said report was received by the drug inspector concerned on 31/1/2014.

(2.) The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the aforesaid offence and issued summons. Taking exception of the same, this petition is filed.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners- accused submits that the subject drug was manufactured by the petitioners-accused in the month of February 2011 and its shelf life was valid till January 2014. He further submits that the drug inspector concerned served notice to the petitioners-accused with a copy of the test report in Form No.13 after the expiry of the shelf life of the subject drug had expired, thus depriving the petitioners-accused of their valuable rights to send the subject drug for re-analysis with the Central Drugs Laboratory as specified under sec. 25 (4) of the Drugs Act . In support, reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court, in the case of Medicamen Biotech Limited and another vs. Rubina Bose, Drug Inspector, reported in (2008) 7 SCC 196.