LAWS(BOM)-2018-10-73

DEVENDRA VINAYKANT SHETH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH DRUG INSPECTOR, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT

Decided On October 23, 2018
Devendra Vinaykant Sheth Appellant
V/S
State Of Maharashtra, Through Drug Inspector, Food And Drug Administration Department Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard both sides for final disposal.

(2.) Present application has been filed by the original accused No. 7 by invoking powers of this Court under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash and set aside proceeding in R. C. C. No. 686 of 2004 pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmednagar on the charge of contravention of Section 18 (a) (1) r/w Section 16 and punishable under Section 27 (d) r/w. Section 34 of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.

(3.) The facts giving rise to this application are that Shri. S. N. Sale is the Drugs Inspector, serving at Ahmednagar. Original accused No. 1 to 4 are stated to be the directors of accused No. 13 M/s. Veronica Laboratories Ltd. Latur. Accused No. 8 was the Chairman and accused No. 9 was the director after change in the Constitution. Accused No. 10 was production chemist and accused No. 11 and 12 were quality control chemist. Accused No. 13 was holding licence for manufacturing of drugs from 1-4-1993 to 31-12-2002. Complainant had extracted sample of Pediscab lotion manufactured by accused No. 13 and sent it for analysis on 16-05-2000 from Shri A. P. Nahar (Partner of M/s. Mahavir Agencies, Ahmednagar). One sealed portion was given to Government Analyst on 17-05-2000. It was reported by Government Analyst on 17-3-2001 that the sample is not of standard quality. The contents of Gamma benzine hexachloride in the sample was less that the claim made on the label as given in the protocol. He called the details from Nahar. After getting information, notice was issued to accused No. 1 Accused No. 1 and 2 have given reply and contended that the three persons are looking after the company. After considering the reply and other facts, it was found that there is contravention of the Drugs Act, therefore, complaint was filed.