ANANT REJENDRALAL THAKORE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application is filed to quash and set aside four Criminal Complaints bearing Nos. 165/s, 166/s, 167/s and 168/s of 1978 pending before Metropolitan Magistrate, 28th Court, Esplanade, Bombay.

(2.) THIS case has a checkered history. The petitioners were distributors of drugs manufactured by M/s. Wyeth Laboratories engaged in manufacturing of bulk drugs, inter alia including Hydrocortisone, Hydrocortisone Acetate and prednisolone. While so, on complaint received from the Sales Tax department on 11-1-1973, the Drug Inspector enquired into the allegation that the petitioner had obtained bogus Havala bills for drugs which covered smuggled items like prednesolone and Hydrocortisone. During the enquiry it was revealed that these items of drugs were sold to M/s. Glaxo Lab (I) Ltd. by the petitioners and Indo Pharma Pharmaceuticals Works Pvt. Ltd. It is also revealed that the petitioner firm had sold mis-branded drugs as if they were manufactured by M/s. Wyeth Laboratories Limited. On the basis of the preliminary enquiry on 21st February. , 1973. The Drugs Inspector filed a First Information Report with the Police for offence under Section 18 read with Rules 65 and Section 27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 against the Petitioners. On 2nd march, 1973, samples were drawn from the tins that were found from Messrs. Glaxo Laboratories (I) Ltd. and Messrs. Indo Pharma Pharmaceuticals Ltd. for laboratory testing. The Government Analyst reported that the drugs Hydrocortisone Acetate and Prednisolone both are of 'standard quality' and there was no adulteration or sale of inferior quality material. On this ground M/s. Glaxo Laboratories and M/s. Indo Pharma Pharmaceuticals were permitted by the court to utilise the drugs for their manufacturing activities. When the investigation was concluded respondent State of Maharashtra filed four complaints before the Magistrate under section 18 (1) (iii) and 18 (e) read with Rule 65 (5) (3) and 19 (c) read with Rule 65 (6) and 18 (c) read with condition No.4 (i) of Licence punishable under section 27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and Rules thereunder. On the basis of this complaint, process was issued against the petitioner. But the complaint was dismissed because of absence of the complainant before the court on 12th Jan. 1978. On 14th June, 1978 after a lapse of nearly six months, respondents filed four fresh complaints which is at Exh. "a" collectively with identical allegations. The complaint also listed 65 witnesses for the prosecution. On 3rd March, 1980, on an application made by the Petitioners for dismissal of the complaints on the grounds of limitation and absence of jurisdiction, the learned Magistrate was pleased to dismiss the complaint holding that offence for breach of Rules were barred by limitation. Against the aforesaid order of dismissal, the respondent State filed Revision Application before this court. On 24th/25th Jan. 1983, this court upheld the contention of the petitioner on the point of limitation and remanded the complaints back for trial in respect of the offences confining only under section 18 (a) (2) read with Section 27 of the Act that is for sale of misbranded drugs. On 6th Sept. 1983, the prosecution commenced evidence and examined two prosecution witnesses. Till 15th March, 1983, only these two witnesses were examined out of 65 witnesses cited. The cross examination of these two witnesses concluded on 17th Jan. 1991 after the lapse of 2 years. On the same day, A. P. P. appearing for the respondent State made a statement to the effect that he closes the case of the prosecution before framing charge. The case was adjourned for argument before charge. On 27th March, 1991 a new Assistant Public Prosecutor who had just been appointed as incharge of the case, made an application for calling for additional witnesses prior to framing of the charges. THIS application was objected to by the petitioner. However, the learned Magistrate has allowed this application and reopened the matter and prosecution was permitted to examine further witnesses in this case. It is in this circumstances, the petitioner had approached this court challenging the proceedings before the magistrate mainly contending that once the prosecution closes the case, it is not legal or proper on the part of the trial court to reopen the matter and allow the prosecution to examine further witnesses.

(3.) WITH the above direction, application is dismissed. No orders as to costs. Rule is discharged accordingly. Interim order stands vacated. Application dismissed. .