J CHAMPALAL Vs. STALE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ACCUSED 4 and 5 in C. C. No. 141 of 1990 on the file of judicial Magistrate, Aruppukottai have filed this petition under Sec. 438, crl. P. C. praying to call for the records in the aforesaid case and quash the same.

(2.) THE short facts are: THE respondent has filed a complaint against five persons out of whom the petitioners are accused 4 and 5 for offence under Sec. 38 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. THE allegations in it are briefly as follows: A-1 is a company. A-2 is the Managing Director. A-3 is the wholesale dealer. A-4 and A-5 are partners of A-3. On 21. 4. 1985, during inspection at Government Hospital , Aruppukottai, the complainant had found stock of VDRL Reagents manufactured by A-1. Investigation revealed that the drug was sold by A-3 to the hospital. As the drug was not labelled with details as required under Rule 96 of Drugs and Cosmetics Rules 1945, the drug is deemed misbranded under Sec. 17 (b) of the Act. Further investigation revealed that a-1 have manufactured and sold the drug to A-3 and they are not licensed to manufacture the drug. On 12. 9. 1989 the complainant seized the drug from Government Hospital , Aruppukottai, in the presence of witnesses. A-1 to A-5 have contravened Sec. 18 (a) (i) read with sec. 17 (b) which is punishable under Sec. 27 (d) of the Act for having manufactured and sold a misbranded drug. Hence the complaint.