PARENTERAL DRUGS (INDIA) LTD. Vs. DRUGS INSPECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The legal sustainability of a prosecution launched by a Drug Inspector whose name has not been notified in the official gazette to exercise his powers over the specified area from where he had booked a case for the commission of offence under Sec. 18(a)(i) read with Sec. 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, (for short, 'Act'), is the main challenge in all these cases. Another serious ground raised against the maintainability of these prosecutions is that the appointment of the Government Analyst, who conducted the laboratory analysis of the drug involved, was also not notified in the official gazette specifying the areas coming under the jurisdiction of that Government Analyst. Thus the scope and ambit of Sec. 20 and 21 of the Act, are to be subjected to scrutiny for the effective resolution of the matter in issues in these cases.

(2.) In Crl.R.P.No.984/2016, the petitioner/accused challenges the order dtd. 13/6/2016 in C.M.P.No.4434/2012, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam, in C.C.No.48/2008, dismissing the above discharge petition filed under Sec. 245(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

(3.) In Crl.M.C.No.2408/2022, the accused in C.C.No.364/2014 on the files of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thrissur, seek to quash the proceedings in the said case.