STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. PRADEEPKUMAR BHUKANDAS SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision application is filed by the State challenging the order dated 30th August 1991 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate presiding in Court No.6, Mazgaon, Bombay in Criminal Case No.239/s/88. The complaint was filed by the Drug Inspector under the provisions of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 for contravention of provisions of Section 18 (a) (i) and 18 (c) punishable under Section 27 of the Act. The drug in question is Gentimex Topical Cream, Batch No. GP-338 which was found in the store of the Respondent No.4-company or firm. The sample was taken on 1st August 1986 from the medical store at Jalgaon. When it was sent to C. A. for chemical analysis it was found to be of sub-standard quality.

(2.) THE evidence was led on behalf of the prosecution of the complainant and the Drug Inspector, in which the respondents-accused were arraigned as accused. THE Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are partners of Respondent No.4-company "m/s. Glumex Pharmaceutical Mgf. Co. " THE learned Metropolitan Magistrate discharged all the respondents-accused by the impugned order on the ground that the receipt produced on behalf of the prosecution being Exhibit P-23 showed Batch number of the drug Gentimex cintment GP-389 while the drug in question is Gentimex Topical Cream bearing Batch No. GP-338. THE State who has preferred this revision has not annexed the copy of the complaint. From the perusal of the judgment of the trial court it appears that the complaint is with regard to the Gentimex Topical Cream which was, as per the C. A. report, of sub-standard quality. From the judgment of the trial court it appears that the witness for the prosecution had stated that though receipt was asked for the sale of the drug in question, the same was not issued by the partner of the firm by name P. B. Shah, Respondent No.1 who was on the relevant day present in the store. It is not in doubt that the said drug was kept in stock in the store of the Respondent No.4-company. Perusal of Section 18 of the Act shows that stocking of the drug also is an offence if it is found to be of sub-standard quality. THE defence of the respondents-accused was that the same was stored for the distribution to the Primary Health Centre in Jalgaon district.

(3.) IN the result I set aside the order dated 30th August 1991 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate presiding in Court No.6, Mazgaon, Bombay, in Criminal Case No.239/s/88 as regards Respondent Nos. 1 and 4 only and direct that the Respondent Nos. 1 and 4 be tried in the above case in accordance with law. It will be open for the said respondents to take up the defence which is open for them in law without being hindered by the observations made in this judgment. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Order accordingly. .