H RAMIAH Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is accused in C.C.No.372 of 1988 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate No.II, Trichy.

(2.) HE is the proprietor of ?Rassons Pharma? situate at No.10-A, Collector's Office Road, Trichy-1. HE is having a valid manufacturing licence in Form 28-A to manufacture the drug RASIGLOBIN valid upto 31.12.1988 on 28.5.1987, one G.Dakshinamoorthy, then Drugs Inspector, Karur Range has drawn the sample of RASIGLOBIN Batch No.7404 after complying with all formalities. HE sent one such sample to the Government Analyst (Drugs), Madras-6, who in turn analysed the sample and gave a report dated 14.10.1987 that the sample did not conform to the label claim with respect to the content of folic acid, thereby indicating that it was not upto the standard quality drug.

(3.) THE gravaman of the accusation as against the petitioner, as disclosed by the report of the Government Analyst serving as the basis for the initiation of launching of prosecution is that the sample of RASIGLOBIN taken from the custody and possession of the petitioner was not answering the label claim as regards the folic acid content. It is not at all the case of the prosecution that the said sample was not answering to the label claim of other components. With regard to the folic acid content, the test that had been performed had been indicated in the report in Column 1 for item 2 folic acid. THE method adopted was ?USP? Method. If the report does not indicate the test or method for determining folic acid content, then it goes without saying that the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner on the first point has to be accepted, the reason being that it is rather a well-settled proposition of law that non-performance of Protocols of test for determining the contents of the components of a sample is fatal to the case of the prosecution. In the case on hand, as indicated above, the protocols of test, as regards folic acid content, had been conducted and in this view of the matter, the first submission of learned counsel for the petitioner bristles next to nothing.