SAFEX INDIA PVTLTD Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPLICANTS , Drug Manufacturers having their Factory and Head Officer at Ratlam, are aggrieved by the order dated 22 -6 -2000 of the IInd Addl. Sessions Judge, Ratlam, passed in Criminal Revision No. 141/1999, whereby the learned ASJ has set aside the order dated 12 -7 -99 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ratlam, in Criminal Case No. 1547/1986, discharging the accused applicants of the charges under Sections 27A and 27B of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (for short, 'the Act')

(2.) TERSELY stated the factual matrix is that on 26 -10 -1984, a sample of Dextrose Injection was taken by the Drug Inspector, Chandigarh, from a retailer at Chandigarh, The sample was divided in four parts and one such part was sent to Government Analyst for analysis. The report of Government Analyst revealed that the sample contained foreign particles. The vendor of the drug as also the local dealer set up the plea available under Section 19 and further by taking recourse to Section 18A of the Act, disclosed that the drug in question was acquired by them from the applicants herein who are duly licensed manufacturer of the drug. The certified copies of the relevant papers were accordingly sent to the Drug Inspector, Ratlam, who on 30 -7 -1986 filed complaint against the applicants in the Court of CJM, Ratlam, alleging commission of the offence under Sections 27A and 27B of the Act. On service of summons, the accused applicants put in their appearance before the Court on 9 -11 -92. When evidence before charge was being recorded, they made an application under Section 245(2) of Cr.PC seeking discharge mainly on the ground that the mandatory provisions of Sections 23(4)(ii)(iii)and 25(2) of the Act, have not been complied with. The application was resisted by the prosecution. The learned CJM uphold the objection and discharged the applicants vide his order dated 12 -7 -1999. However, in revision the learned ASJ vide his order dated 22 -6 -2000 has set aside the order of the CJM and directed for continuance of the trial of the applicants who have, therefore, come up before this Court in revision.

(3.) I have heard Shri S.K. Pawnekar, learned counsel for applicants and Shri G. Desai, Dy. Advocate General for respondent -State.