MITESHBHAI J.PATEL Vs. DRUG INSPECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Common questions are involved and therefore these revision petitions are disposed of by this common order.

(2.) Crl.R.P 282 of 2018: Accused No.4 and 5 in C.C.No.1 of 2014 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class- III, Kozhikode are the petitioners. On 29/1/2010, samples of medicines were drawn from City Medicals, Kozhikode. Report from the Drug Analyst was obtained on 9/4/2010. The medicines were not of prescribed standard. Hence, the complaint was filed on 24/6/2013. The offence alleged against the petitioners is punishable under Sec. 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, for which the maximum punishment prescribed is imprisonment for two years and also fine. Stating that the period of limitation for filing the complaint being three years as per Sec. 468(2)(c) of the Code, and the complaint was filed after that period, the petitioners sought to drop the proceedings against them.

(3.) The court below after considering the matter in detail took the view in both the cases that there was no delay in filing the complaints. It was held that on getting the report of examination from the Drug Analyst, details of the manufacturer/supplier were to be collected and therefore the complainant issued notice under Sec. 18A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The details were furnished by the City Medicals. As contemplated in Sec. 25(2) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, a copy of Form -13 report along with a sample was sent to the 1st accused-company. In terms of Sec. 25(3) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, a period of 28 days ought to be given to the 1st accused for it to avail the opportunity of getting the sample examined in the Central Drug Laboratory. It was further noticed by the court below that details of the constitutional particulars of the 1st accused-Company were necessary since the persons responsible for the affairs of the company are also liable to be prosecuted as per Sec. 31 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. If the said period was also excluded, there was no delay and accordingly the court below dismissed the petition filed in both the cases.