VHA VENKATA RAJU Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PW.1 inspected M/s Nidubrolu Medical Agencies, Nidubrolu, a licensed sales premises, and purchased ten bottles of Sodium Chloride an dextrose injections manufactured under dated 13-2-1989 to be used within 18 months therefrom said to be manufactured by M/s Vezey Parenteral Products, F-7, Industrial Estate, Kakinada (hereinafter referred to as A-1). The samples were taken, after observing necessary formalities, in the presence of P.W.2, the proprietor of M/s Nidubrolu Medical Agencies, etc. Two such bottles weresent to the Government Analyst Drugs Control Laboratory, Hyderabad in Form No.18 under date 28-6-1989 after observing necessary formalities and the report of the analyst states that the said sample is not of standard quality as defined in the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the Rules made thereunder as the solution in the sealed bottles contains plenty of particles and fungus like mass. This report is marked as Ex. P-3. P.W.1 Sent a copy of Ex. P-3 by registered post to M/s Nidubrolu Medical Agencies, Nidubrolu with a direction to disclose source of supply from whom they acquired the said product. In view of that, P.W.2 representing M/s Nidubrolu Medical Agencies, Nidubrolu informed P.W.I that the said product was purchased from M/s Amruta Medical Agencies, Narsaraopet Vide Invoice No.12/100 dated 9th May, 1990 and produced the xerox copy of the purchase bill. As such, P.W.1 addressed a letter dated 16-2-1990 to M/s Amrutha Medical Agencies, Narsaraopet about the contents of Ex.P-3 and about the factum of P.W.2 informing P.W.I that P.W.2 purchased the same from M/s Armutha Medical Agencies, Narsaraopet. Thereupon, P.W.3 a partner of the M/s Amrutha Medical Agencies informed P.W.I that the drug in question was supplied by A-1 vide invoice No. 7/89 dated 8-5-1989. In the said communication, P.W.3 confirmed to have sold the drug in question to M/s Nidubrolu Medical Agencies, Nidubrolu from whom P.W.I took the sample. Later P.W.1 laid prosecution against A-1 and the revision petitioner, who is no other than sole proprietor of A-l in C.C. No.78/90 on the file of the judicial First Class Magistrate, Ponnur. The learned Magistrate having tried the case held that A-l is not guilty of any offence and the revision petitioner is guilty of offences under Section 17 (a), 18 (a) (i) and Rule 78 (m) read with Section 27 (d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act (in brief 'the Act') and the rules framed thereunder and convicted the revision petitioner to suffer R.I. for a period of one year and also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ - in default to undergo R.I. for one month. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petition filed Crl. A.No. 119 of 1991 on the file on the learned Sessions Judge, Guntur. The learned Sessions Judge having considered the matter dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the same present revision case is filed.

(2.) Sri Padmanabha Reddy, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that under Section 23 (4) (iii) read with Section 18 (A) of the Act, the revision petitioner is entitled to a portion of the sample; as per the provisions of Section 25(2) of the Act, his client is also entitled to a copy of Ex. P-3 and since the sample or copy of Ex. P-3 not supplied, his client is precluded from exercising a valuable right to get the sample examined by the Central Drug Laboratory, as provided under Section 25(4) of the Act. He further contends that the above provisions are mandatory and consequently the accused is entitled for an acquittal, To appreciate the above contentions, Secs.23(4)(iii), 18(A) and 25 (2) of the Act are extracted below: Section 23(4) (iii).

(3.) The learned counsel for the Revision petitioner relies upon a decision reported in Drugs Inspector, C.D.S.C.O. (South) Zone, Madras vs. Modern Drugs wherein it is observed as followed: