RAJNIKANT GULABDAS PATEL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

(2.) The applicant, a Joint Director of pharmaceutical company, has questioned the legality, correctness and propriety of the order dtd. 19/1/2022 passed by the Sessions Court, Wardha in Sessions Case No. 59/2018 whereby the application filed by the applicant seeking discharge for the offences punishable under Sec. 18(a)(i) read with Ss. 16, 14 and 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (for short 'the Act of 1940') has been dismissed. The challenge is mainly on the ground of absence of requisite averments in the complaint to the effect that the applicant was, at the relevant time, in-charge of the company and also responsible to the company for the conduct of its business.

(3.) The facts necessary to decide the application are as under. The respondent - complainant has filed complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate against ten accused, of which accused nos. 6 to 8 and 10 came to be discharged vide order dtd. 30/8/2014 passed by the Sessions Court in Criminal Revision No. 47/2013. According to the complainant, he collected sample of Cepy-O Dry syrup from M/s. Quality Drugs on 13/10/2011 which was Cefpodoxime Oral Suspension IP for pediatric use. The said drug was alleged to have been manufactured by the accused no. 1 - company, namely, M/s. Lincoln Pharmaceuticals Limited, Ahmedabad. The sample was forwarded for analysis to the Government Analyser, who reported it to be of substandard quality. During the enquiry, it was revealed that M/s. Quality Drugs had purchased the said syrup from M.S. Sales Corporation, Nagpur who intimated that it was purchased from the accused no. 1 - company, the holder of valid manufacturing licence. The said medicine/syrup, however, was manufactured under the licence of M/s. Sakar Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., Changodar under the approved technical person deployed by the said company. It further transpired that though the manufacturing licence was held by the accused no. 1-company but it was the a loan licence with the accused no. 5 - company and accused no. 5 used to manufacture the said drugs and same was marketed by accused no. 1 - company.