STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. RAJASTHAN PHARMACEUTICAL LABORATORY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal by the State, the judgment of acquittal passed by the Judicial Magistrate, I Class (IV Court), Bangalore, acquitting the three respondents, who were, accused 1, 3 and 4, in CC.2287 of 1971 before the Magistrate of the offences under S.18((c) punishable, under S.27(a,) (ii), under S.18(a) (i) punishable under S.27(b) and under S.18A punishable under S.28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), has baen challenged.

(2.) Respondent 1 is a firm of which respondent 2 is a partner and respondent 3 is the manager. One more partner of the firm had also been arrayed as accused 2, but the trial did not proceed against him as he was absconding.

(3.) Respondent 1 Admittedly holds a licence in the requisite form for re-packing of drugs. It has its premises as described in the cause title;. PW.1 H.Jayaram, Drugs Inspector, visited the premises of respondent 1 with panchas including PW.3 Srinivas and PW.4 K.S.Anantha Rao on 27-2-1970 and inspected the premises. Respondent 3 was present in the premises. The premises were searched by PW.1 in the presence of the panchas. They found, in an upstairs room, various packets of drugs manufactured by different manufacturers. PW.1 asked respondent 3 to disclose the source of acquisition of these drugs. Respondent 3 could not produce any material disclosing the source of acquisition of these drugs. Those drugs were sorted out and a list was prepared. It was found that the the drugs consisted of 42 items and many of those items were not in the approved list appended to the licence issued to respondent 1. That disclosed to PW.1 that respondent 1 had in his possession in his premises drugs in regard to which he had no licence to deal with. All these drugs had bean kept by him for distribution or purpose of sale. The panchanama Ex.P3 with the list of the drugs was prepared and a receipt Ex.P4 issued. Respondent 3 signed on the panchanama and the list of the drugs and a copy of the list was furnished to respondent 3. It is the prosecution case that out of these 42 items listed and seized, 33 items are not in the approved list appended to the licence issued to respondent 1. Respondent 3 could not disclose tha source of acquisition in regard to any of the items of the drugs seized. PW.1 reported the seizure and obtained permission from the Magistrate to retain these seized 42 items of drugs with himself. Later, PW 1 issued a notice under S.18A of the Act to respondent 1 as per the original of Ex.P5, calling upon it to disclose the source of acquisition of all the 42 items of drugs. No reply was received by PW.1. Again oh 23-3-1970 PW.1 sent a reminder as per the original of Ex.P6 calling upon respondent to disclose the source of acquisition of the drugs seized. On 16-4-1970 a reply as per Ex.P7 sent by respondent 3 was received by PW.1; By Ex.P7, signed by respondent 3, respondent 1 denied the seizure and alleged that the drugs referred to in Ex.PS were not at all in his possession and hence the question of disclosing the source of acquisition of those items did not arise. Then on 25-9-1970 as per Ex P8 PW.1 made an application to the Court for permission to take samples from the seized drugs in order to get the samples analysed by the Govt Analyst to find out whether they were of the standard prescribed by the Pharmacopeia of India. Permission was granted by the Court. On 8-10-1970 he secured the very same panchas and in their presence and in the presence of respondent 3, opened the seals on the boxes of drugs and took samples in 4 items of the seized drugs. A mahazar Ex.P9 was prepared and it was signed by respondent 3 as per Ex.P9(a) . Form 17 was issued to respondent 3 as per copies Exs.PIO and P11. Respondent endorsed on Exs.P10 and P11 for having received copies. Samples taken were also given to respondent 3 at that time. The samples were sent to Govt Analyst for analysis and report. The Govt Analyst sent his reports which reached the, office of PW.1 on 31-10-1970. As per these reports it was found that sodium bromide IP. Batch 1 was of sub-standard. That disclosed that an offence under S.18(a) (i) punishable under S.27(b) of the Act had been committed by the respondents. PW.1 was transferred from Bangalore and! D. Hanumantha Rao PW. 2 was transferred to Bangalore and posted as Drugs Inspector. He ultimately filed a complaint before the Court alleging that the respondents had committed the above narrated offences.