LAWS(APH)-2000-9-61

BIDDLE SAWYER LTD Vs. STATE OF A P

Decided On September 27, 2000
BIDDLE SAWYER LTD., MUMBAI Appellant
V/S
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Section 482 Cr.PC seeks quashing of proceedings in CC No.429 of 2000 on the file of the II Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, in which the petitioners face charge for the offence under Section 27(d) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (for short 'the Act'), for violation of Section 18(a)(i) read with Section 16 and Second Schedule of the Act.

(2.) Petitioner No.1/A-1 is the Company. Petitioners 2 to 5 who are A2 to A5 in the complaint are said to be Chairman and Directors of the said Company. The offence alleged against the accused as revealed from the complaint is that a drug called mendazole (Membendazole suspension) was manufactured and sold by the Company, which when tested was found to be a sub-standard one. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the drug in question was manufactured by A1-Company some times in July, 1997.

(3.) It is stated that the Company was taken over by Glaxo India Limited on 5-1-1998 and the 2nd petitioner was Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Company. It is further stated that as a part of process of taking over, petitioners 3 and 5 were appointed as its Directors on 1-10-1997 whereas petitioner No.4 was appointed as its Director on 15-12-1997. The contention of the learned senior Counsel for the petitioners Mr. Padmanabh Reddy is that the complaint itself discloses that the drug in question was manufactured in July, 1997 as seen from the allegations in paragraph 2 of the complaint wherein it is stated that the drug in question pertains to 'batch No.MS-162, Manufacturing date July, 19 97 and expiry date: June, 2000'. In fact the drug in question was seized from the medical stores of Railway Hospital on 24-7-1998. The contention is that inasmuch as the drug in question was manufactured and sold by the Company in July, 1997, petitioners 2 to 5 herein, who have been appointed as Chairman and Directors of the Company subsequent to that date, cannot be held liable for any contravention of the relevant provisions of law relating to the manufacture of the drug in question.