RENU CHOPRA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) G. P. Mathur, J. This petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C, has been filed for quashing the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 98 of 1977 (State v. J. K. Chopra and Others') under Section 18/27, Drugs and Cosmetics Act and Section 120-B, I. P. C.

(2.) THE Inspector of Drugs filed a criminal complaint against J. K. Chopra and eleven others in the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur for their prosecution under Section 27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and Section 120-B, I. P. C. THE applicant Smt. Renu Chopra is daughter of Sri J. K. Chopra and is arrayed as accused No. 9 in the complaint. THE material allegations in the complaint are that a Firm M/s Spa Pharma of which J. K. Chopra and his wife Smt. Gargi Chopra were partners was granted a licence on 31-5-1965 to manufacture Drugs. Smt. Gargi Chopra (accused) also worked as Analytical Chemist in the said Firm. On 14-9-1971 accused J. K. Chopra moved an application before the Assistant Controller of Drugs U. P. for granting approval to Smt. Gargi Chopra as manufacturing chemist. About 50 drugs manufactured by the Firm M/s Spa Pharma were reported to be not of prescribed standard. Apprehending action, the partners of the Firm M/s Spa Pharma sold the same to Sri Gajanan Goyal on 17-7-1973. J. K. Chopra and V. K. Seth constituted another Firm in the name and style of M/s B. Jay Pharma in 1972 and an application was given on 30-3-1973 for grant of licence to manufacture drugs. THE accused Niranjan Prasad, Assistant Controller of Drugs and accused R. K. Arora Inspector of Drugs knowing fully well that accused J. K. Chopra was earlier running the Firm Spa Pharma, the drugs manufactured by which had been found to be substandard, made a recom mendation for grant of licence to the Firm B. Jay Pharma. Manufacturing licence was in fact granted in favour of the aforesaid Firm on 11-5-1973 and Smt. Gargi Chopra was shown as manufacturing chemist in the licence. Another firm by the name of M/s B. Jay Pharma (Sales) was also constituted at Kanpur of which the applicant Renu Chopra daughter of J. K. Chopra aforesaid and Smt. Pushpa Seth wife of B. K. Seth were partners. This Firm started selling drugs manufactured by M/s B. Jay Pharma. THE case of the prosecution further is that Firm M/s B. Jay (Sales) sold Dextrose Injections and some other drugs manufactured by the Firm M/s B. Jay Pharma to L. L. R. Hospital Kanpur on 9-4-1974. THEse drugs were given to the patients in the Hospital and several of them died between 11-4-1974 to 14-4-74. Sample of the drugs sold by the Firm B. J. Pharma (Sales) was collected from the Hospital and was sent for analysis to Government Analyst Central Drugs Laboratory, Calcutta who reported the same to be adulterated. THEreafter, a com plaint was filed against twelve persons in cluding Dr. Niranjan Prasad the then Assis tant Controller of Drugs U. P. and Sri R. K. Arora the then Inspector of Drugs Kanpur.

(3.) SECTION 17-A of Drugs and Cos metics Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) lays down when a drug shall be deemed to be adulterated. If a drug consists in whole or in part of any filthy putrid or decomposed substance or if it has been prepared, packed or stored under insanitary conditions where by it may have been contaminated with filth or whereby it may have been rendered in jurious to health, it will be adulterated within the meaning of sub-section (a) or (b) as the case may be. Similarly if a drug con tains any harmful or toxic substance which may render it injurious to health it will be adulterated within the meaning of sub-sec tion (e ). According to the report of the analyst the drugs supplied by the Firm M/s B. Jay Pharma (Sales) to the Hospital were of the type enumerated in sub-section (a), sub- section (b) and sub-section (e) and were, therefore, adulterated within the meaning of SECTION 17-A of the Act. SECTION 27 provides that whoever sells any drug deemed to be adulterated under SECTION 17-A, shall be liable to be punished with im prisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to three years and with fine which shall not be less than five thousand rupees. The allega tions in the complaint show that the ap plicant is a partner of the Firm which sold adulterated drugs to the Hospital. There fore, the case of the applicant clearly comes within the purview of SECTION 27 of the Act and the proceedings instituted against her cannot be quashed.