MEENAZ MOLOOBHAY Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL the above Criminal Applications have been filed under S. 482 of Cr. P. C. challenging the common order of conviction and sentence recorded under S. 18 (c) read with S. 27 (b) (ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 by the learned Metropolitan Magistrates 6th Court,, Mazgaon, Bombay on 19-12-1990 and the notices and summons issued to the applicants by his order dated 28-1-1993 in C. C. No. 32/s of 1990.

(2.) THE brief facts, leading to the above proceeding, are as follows : on 30-11-1990 Drug Inspector (Greater Bombay) filed complaint being C. C. No. 32/s of 1990 in the Metropolitan Magistrates 6th Court, Mazgaon, Bombay against seven accused for contravention of S. 18 (c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 punishable under S. 27 (b) (ii) of the said Act. A copy of the said complaint is annexed at Exhibit "a" to the petition. The allegations in the complaint were that the original accused Nos. 1 to 6 were the partners of accused No. 7 M/s. Ahmed S. Moloobhoy and Sons situated at Anchor House, 1st Quay Street, Darukhana, Mazgaon, Bombay 400 010. During the inspection of the aforesaid Firm on 16-12-1989 the Drugs Inspector had noticed that the accused had sold Codeine Sulphate Tablets and Calmpose Tablets to M/s. Marine Safty Services, 25-8-141, Main Road, Vishakhapatnam without holding requisite licence from the Drugs Authority in respect of the premises and, thus, there was contravention of S. 18 (c) of the Act. The said tablets are schedule "h" drugs as per S. 3 (b) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940 and a licence in Form No. 20 (8) and 20 is required for the sale by wholesale and retail respectively. After the said complaint was lodged in the Court at about 11-05 a. m. , the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the same and passed order issuing process by 11-10 a. m. on that very day. The order, issuing process is quoted of the paper book and reads as follows :

(3.) PURSUANT to the aforesaid order summons were issued to all the accused which were served on the original accused No. 1 by name Adil S. Moloobhoy who has not challenged the order of conviction in this Court. On 18-12-1990, i. e. the first date, the accused No. 1 appeared in the Court and made application to the trial Court that accused Nos. 2 to 6 i. e. the applicants in the above petitions had retired prior to the date of the incident and were not responsible for the business of accused No. 7 Firm Ahmed S. Moloobhoy and Sons and, therefore, their names should be deleted. In the said application he had also expressed his desire to plead guilty on behalf of himself and the Firm being accused No. 7 both of whom have not challenged the order impugned herein. A copy of the said application is annexed at Exhibit "c" to the petition. The said application was resisted on behalf of the prosecution on the ground that the licence issued earlier shows the names of accused Nos. 2 to 6 even at the time of renewal in the year 1989 for 1990-1991 by the application submitted on 4-12-1989. Thereafter the evidence of complainant was recorded. The charge was framed by the learned Magistrate against all the accused persons including the applicants herein on 19-12-1990 under the provision of S. 18 (c) read with S. 27 (b) (ii) of the Act, a copy whereof is annexed at Exhibit "e" to the petition. To the charge framed against the accused, original accused No. 1 Adil Moloobhoy pleaded guilty for himself and on behalf of all the partners and the company which plea was recorded on 19-12-1990. This was followed by the impugned order passed on the same day, a copy whereof is annexed at Exhibit "g" to the petition. The order begins with the following sentences :