M/S. RES SANCTA REP. BY RAJEEV CHAUHAN & ORS. Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU, REP. BY A. CHANDRA MARY, DRUGS INSPECTOR, HOSUR RANGE, O/O. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF DRUGS CONTROL, NO. 7, THIRUVALLUVAR STREET, SALEM ZONE, SUBRAMANIYA NAGAR, SALEM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present criminal original petition has been filed to call for the records in C.C. No. 35 of 2016 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. I, Hosur and quash the same.

(2.) On the basis of the complaint given by the respondent as against the petitioners for the contravention of Section 18(a)(i) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940 and is punishable under Section 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No. I, Hosur, a case was registered in Crime No. 35 of 2016. To quash the said proceedings, the petitioners have come up with the present petition.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the first petitioner is a firm and the petitioners 2 to 5 are its partners. The first petitioner firm is manufacturing the drugs prescribed under various schedules under the manufacturing licenses in Form-25 and Form-28 of Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 issued by the Licensing and Controlling Authority, Food and Drugs Administration, Himachal Pradesh. The first petitioner was also granted approval in relation to Bro-Mycodex Syrup by the Drugs Controlling and Licensing Authority, Baddi, pursuant to which, the first petitioner had manufactured Bro-Mycodex Syrup. While so, the respondent conducted an inspection at the licensed premises of the petitioners viz., M/s. Raj Pharma, No. 22/10, Najundeswara Temple Street, Hosur, Krishnagiri, and during the inspection, sample of Bro-Mycodex Syrup with the particulars was drawn from the said medical store. In terms of the provisions of Section 23 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, the respondent forwarded one sample portion of the Bro-Mycodex Syrup taken from the said store to the Government Analyst (Drugs), Drugs Testing Laboratory, Chennai and the Government Analyst, vide its report dated 1.6.2015 in Form-13 reported that the sample is not of standard quality as defined in the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and the Rules framed thereunder for the reason that the Assay of Terbutaline Suplhate is less than the limit as claimed in the label. Subsequently, the respondent issued a show cause memo dated 24.11.2015 along with the said report to the first petitioner, calling for explanation for the alleged contravention of the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act for having manufactured sub-standard drugs for sale and distribution. The first petitioner vide reply dated 10.12.2015 which was submitted within the stipulated period of 28 days provided under Section 25(3) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, controverted the Government Analyst Report since the sample of the subject drug tested by the petitioner was found to be of standard quality. In the light of the contravention, within the statutory period, the first petitioner is entitled to get the sample tested by the Central Drug Laboratory, Calcutta under Section 25(4) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.