GALPHA LABORATORIES LTD Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code for the sake of brevity), the petitioners have prayed for quashing and setting aside the impugned complaint filed against the petitioners being Criminal Case No.3615 of 2010 filed by respondent No.2 in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate First Class, Navsari for the offence punishable under Sections 18(a)(i) and 27(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for the sake of brevity).

(2.) IT reveals from the record of the petition that the petitioners are original accused Nos.13 to 16. The record further reveals that the petitioners herein have purchased the drug namely Rabitop tablet from its manufacturer bearing manufacturing date as February 2006 and its expiry date being January 2008 having Batch No.B.A.H.G.611. It appears from the record of the petition and more particularly the impugned complaint that on 23.1.2007, the Drug Inspector attached to the office of the Assistant Commissioner, Controller of Food and Drugs, Valsad took samples of 20 Rabitop tablets from original accused Nos.1 to 3 (the local stores situated at Navsari). The record further reveals that the said drug was sent for examination and analysis to the Food and Drug Laboratory situated at Vadodara on 6.2.2007. By its test report No.Q/1/15/08(D) dated 9.1.2008, the Laboratory declared in the said report that the sample was below standard on account of absence of an active element called Rabibrazol Sodium. It further appears that on receipt of such a report, the department by a communication dated 22.2.2008 informed the petitioners and directed them to stop purchase -sale of the drug and recall all the issues made earlier from the wholesale market and also sent a copy of the said report as envisaged under Section 25(2) of the Act. It appears from the record that on receipt of the said communication, petitioner No.1, by communication dated 7.3.2008, informed the Drug Inspector, Valsad and also forwarded the letters written to the distributors for recalling the product from the market including the letter written to the Laboratory concerned intimating them to return Rabitop tables bearing Batch No.B.A.H.G.611. In the said communication, petitioner No.1 has clearly mentioned that the aforesaid exercise has been done without prejudice to its right to contest the Government Analyst's Report as regards quality of the product. It clearly reveals from the record that by communication dated 8.3.2010, the competent authority in the State of Gujarat granted approval to file a complaint and ultimately, impugned complaint came to be filed on 27.7.2010 before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate First Class at Navsari and by the order of even date, the learned Magistrate has issued process and being aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed.

(3.) HEARD Mr. Y.H. Motiramani, learned advocate for the petitioners and Mr. Alkesh N. Shah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents.