STATE Vs. M/S. UNI DRUG AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed by the State against the order passed by the XVI Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Madras 1, in C.C, No. 27681 of 1974, acquitting the accused who were charged for an offence under Ss. 18(a)(i) and 27 of the Drugs and, Cosmetics Act, 1940.

(2.) The prosecution case is as follows: Al is a firm situate at No. 177, Govindappa Naicken Street, Madras 1, licensed to repack and sell drugs as provided under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act. Accused 2 to 4 are the partners and A5 is the chemist of the said firm. P.W. I is the Drug Inspector.

(3.) On 7th April, 1973, P.W. I visited the Government Medical Store Depot, Madras 3, and found there a stock of 3000 packets each 500 gms. of purified talc I.P. Batch No. 639. He took four samples each of 500 gms. under Ex. Pl and sealed those four samples with his seal and also the seal of the Government Medical Stores Depot and handed over one sample to the Manager. The second sample was sent for chemical analysis under Ex. 1-2. He kept the third female with him. He received the Government Analyst's report, Ex. P4, stating that the sample was not of standard quality. On 9th Oct., 1973 are went to M/s. Ramesh Medical Hall belonging to A3. He seized some records under Ex P5. The manufacturer's record of M/s. Uni Drug (Al) is Ex. P6. He seized a few records from Al firm. On 16th Oct., 1973 he wrote to the Deputy Asst. Director General, Government Medical Stores Depot, with a copy of the Analyst's report, Ex. P4, to furnish the name and address of the supplier of the drug covered by Ex. P4, quantity received, the balance in hand and the ether distribution particulars, by letter, dated 16th Nov., 1973 . On 16th Nov., 1973 he received a reply, Ex. P12. Then, a show cause memo, was issued to Al with a copy of Ex. 14 . He tried to hand over the samples to accused 2 to 4 with the Analyst's report and copy of the memo, but they declined to receive them. After finding out the partners of Al firm with the help of the original partnership deed, he made a report to the Drugs Controller under Ex. PI 5 for sanction which was duly granted by Ex. 16, 18th Sept., 1974. Then, the proceedings were launched against the accused under S. 18 (a)(i) of the Act for having manufactured a drug which is not of standard quality.