WEST FORT HOSPITAL Vs. DRUGS INSPECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by accused Nos. 1 to 3 in S.T.No. 580 of 1997 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thrissur for quashing the proceedings initiated against them in connection with the above case. The complaint, copy of which is Annexure A, was filed against the present petitioners and another person alleging commission of offences under S.18(a)(iv) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") read with R.65(3)(1) and (4)(1) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules and S.27 (d) of the Act.

(2.) On the basis of a complaint given by one Dileep Ghosh, the Drugs Inspector, Thrissur inspected the Pharmacy of the first petitioner, M/s.West Fort Hospital, West Fort, Thrissur on 14-6-1995 and seized certain drugs and documents. The drugs seized from the Pharmacy were stated to be drugs the potency of which had expired. The complaint of Dileep Ghosh was that since the drugs, the potency of which had expired, purchased from the Pharmacy was administered to his mother, she died while undergoing treatment in the hospital. On seizing the drugs and documents from the Pharmacy of the hospital, a report was filed in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate on producing those articles. Annexure B final report was subsequently given to the above court stating that on an enquiry conducted by the Drugs Inspector, it was revealed that there was no evidence to show sale of the date expired drugs as alleged and the date of expiry printed on the label was a computer error. It was further stated in the final report that the court may drop the proceedings. Subsequently Annexure C letter was received by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thrissur from the Deputy Director of Prosecution stating that the enquiry and the investigation made by the Drugs Inspector were not complete and hence Annexure E report should not accepted. Thereafter the learned Magistrate made Annexure D order directing the Drugs Inspector to conduct further investigation of the case. Annexure A complaint on the basis of which S.T.No.580 of 1997 was taken on the file of the court was subsequently filed by the Drugs Inspector. .

(3.) Quashing of the proceedings in the above complaint is sought for by saying that the procedure adopted by the learned Magistrate was not proer and the subsequent filing of the complaint is not permissible since already Annexure B report had been filed in the court stating that further proceedings in the matter had to be dropped. Any how, there is now a proper complaint, Annexure A, filed in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate on the basis of which a criminal case has been taken on file against the petitioners and another - person, the 4th accused. Eventhough there was a direction by the learned Magistrate, as could be seen from Annexure D, the subsequent filing of the complaint by the Drugs Inspector alleging commission of offences by the petitioners and the other accused cannot be said to be without authority. That being the position, quashing of the complaint merely for the reason that on an earlier occasion Annexure B report was given cannot be allowed.