RAHUL SEHGAL Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the complaint in C.C. No. 2408/2003 of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam, which was filed under Section 32 of the Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') against the petitioner and his company for violation of Section 18(a)(i) of the Act which is punishable under Section 27(d) of the Act. The petitioner is the 2nd accused in the above case. The second respondent, who is the Drugs Inspector from the Office of the Drugs Controller, Ernakulam filed the above complaint in the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Ernakulam alleging that the 2nd respondent obtained sample of Cloxacillin Sodium Capsules IP 250 mg, a drug manufactured by the petitioner's firm as per Section 23 of the Act from the Government Hospital Stores, Tripunithura, Ernakulam on 25/07/2002, which was forwarded to Government Analyst, Drugs Testing Laboratory, Thiruvananthapuram under Section 23(4) of the Act and the drug was declared as not of Standard Quality prescribed by Government Analyst, Drugs Testing Laboratory, Thiruvananthapuram. Annexure-A1 is the complaint. The grounds alleged for quashing the complaint are violation of mandatory provisions of the Act and absence of necessary pleadings. The inherent powers of the High Court contemplated under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has to be exercised in case of significant and serious injustice mentioned in the Section. This power cannot be invoked naturally in a matter where it is covered by a specific provision of the Code. Therefore it means that if the matter in question is not covered by any provision of the code, it comes into operation, for the objects mentioned in the section. In the State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal, 1992 Supp1 SCC 426 the Supreme Court pointed out that:

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is not in charge of the day-to-day affairs of the Company and the trial will end in acquittal. Annexure-A1 was filed without ascertaining the true facts and sequence of the events happened subsequent to 23/12/2002. He admitted that there was complaint with regard to the manufacture of Cloxacillin Capsule from different part of the country and at that time, a detailed enquiry was conducted by the Director of Food and Drugs Administration, Panaji and he issued direction to stop the manufacturing of the above drug in his firm with effect from 23/12/2002.

(3.) The learned Public Prosecutor resisted the above argument and contended that the 2nd respondent is the authorised signatory to prosecute the 1st accused as per the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and all details are properly furnished in the complaint.