PONDY CHEMICALS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners facing prosecution for offences under Section 18(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) punishable under Section 27(b)(ii) thereof and on the charge of having manufactured the Drug Povidone Iodine 5% W/V Solution I.P. without any valid licence and endorsement. In C.C. No. 348 of 2006, the Judicial Magistrate No. III, Salem has issued summons against the petitioners.

(2.) The Drugs Inspector had taken for analysis purposes, a sample of Iodine solution 5% W/V manufactured by the first petitioner Company of which the second petitioner is the Managing Partner and the 3rd petitioner is the Manufacturing Chemist. The report of the analyst shows that the product was not of Standard quality. Subsequently, the Officials under the Act had visited the first petitioner premises and found that the first petitioner concern held a license for manufacturing drugs which was valid upto 31.12.2006. The first petitioner concern had undergone a change of constitution, from one of partnership to a sole proprietorship Concern belonging to the second. The change of constitution had not been duly informed as per the rules towards obtaining a fresh license within the stipulated period of three months. A major contravention alleged was that the licence issued to the first petitioner did not extend to production of the seized drugs. Hence, the complaint has been filed against the petitioners herein for offence under Section 18(c) of the Act for having manufactured drugs without any valid license, which was punishable under Section 27(b)(ii) and for offence under Section 18(a)(i) of the Act punishable under Section 27(d) of the Act for having manufactured drugs which were not of standard quality.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the drugs was supplied in June 1993 and a sample was drawn from the Kumaramangalam Medical college Hospital on 17.09.2003. The report of the Analyst is dated 15.10.2003. The complaint had been lodged on 17.10.2006. The Lower Court has taken cognizance of the offences alleged in the complaint and issued summons to the petitioners on 02.11.2006. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the maximum period of punishment for offence under Section 27(b)(ii) of the Act is three years, while in respect of the offence under Section 27(d) of the Act comes the maximum punishment only was two years. Section 468 of the Criminal Procedure Code bars the taking of cognizance of any offence by any Court after the expiry of the period of limitation in respect of category of offences specified in Sub-Section (2) thereof. Sub-Section(2) informs that the period of limitation is three years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years. Thus the complaint would be out of time and the proceedings against the petitioners have to be quashed on such sole following ground.