B NARASIMMAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner seeks to quash the proceedings in CC.No,598/2001 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate III, Salem.

(2.) THE private complaint has been filed against the petitioner by the respondent for the offences under Section 18(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940 (herein after referred to as the Act) read with Rule 65(5)(a) and 104A of the Drugs and Cosmetic Rules, 1945 (herein after referred to as the Rules) punishable under Section 27(d) of the Act.

(3.) ON a careful perusal of the complaint, it is seen that in the sales bills Nos.105 to 114, there is omission in mentioning the batch number and the name of the manufacturer and thus, the petitioner Company had contravened Rule 65(5)(1)(c) and 65(5)(1)(d) of the Rules. That apart, the retail price seems to have been erased in the outer carton as well as in the label of the ampoules, which is in contravention of Rule 104A of the Rules for having defaced the inscription of MRP made by the manufacturer. When the complainant had inspected the premises of M/s. S.S. Chemicals on 23.11.2000, copies of the invoices produced thereon do not bear the signature of the competent person, which is in contravention of Rule 65(5)(1)(e) of the Rules.