STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. VIKRAM CHEMICAL LABORATORIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State has filed this appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 29-9-1973 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class (I Court), Bangalore City in C.C. No. 341 of 1971 acquitting the respondents of the offence punishable under Section 27 (b) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').

(2.) P.W. 1, P. L. Narasimhan, the Drugs Inspector visited the Government Medical Stores, Bangalore, which is a licensed premises, on 10-2-1970. He took samples in four portions of the drug Potassium Bicarbonate I. P. Batch No, 116. P.W. 2 H. Abdul Rahim, Assistant Director and P.W. 3, K. Venkatarama lyengar, Secretary of the Government Medical Stores, who were in possession of this drug were present at that time. The seizure, according to the prosecution, was made under Section 22 (b) of the Act. P. Ws. 2 and 3 disclosed the name of M/s. Vikram Chemical Laboratories, Bangalore as the supplier as required under Section 18-A of the Act. P.W. 1 sent one of the samples to respondent-1 as required by Section 23 of the Act. He sent another sample to the Government Analyst who on examining it, sent his report as per Ex. P-3. On perusing the report, it was found that the drug was sub-standard and therefore, the respondents had committed an offence punishable under Section 27 (b) of the Act. A case was filed against the respondents.

(3.) Simple denial is the only defence of the respondents. They further contended that they received the drug in bulk quantities in gunny-bags from the manufacturer in Bombay and they were simply concerned with repacking and after repacking into small quantities they supplied to the Government Medical Stores and therefore, they have not committed any offence. Various technical contentions as against the applicability of Sections 22 and 23 of the Act and the admissibility of the report of the Government Analyst as per Ex. P-3 under the provisions of the Act were also raised. The remaining contention is that the drug might have become sub-standard in view of the climatic conditions.