KAMALESH PURKAIT Vs. SAMBHUNATH DEY DRUG INSPECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revisional application (Criminal Revision No. 143 of 1997) is for quashing of a proceeding before C.R. Case No. 1169/96 under sections 27 and 28A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 now pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Barasat, North 24 Parganas.

(2.) The present petitioner No.1 is the works Manager in M/s. Caplet India Private Limited, a company registered under the Companies Act and the petitioner No.2 is the chemist in the said company, which is engaged in manufacturing and sale of different kinds of medicines. Amongst its various products the company also manufacture "Paracetamol I.P.500 mg." tablets.

(3.) The complainant Sri Sambunath Dey, Inspector of Drugs (O.P. No.1 herein) had taken samples of the said Paracetamol tablets of 2000 in numbers in four containers each containing 50 tablets from the District Reserve Stores, Chief Medical Officer of Health, Burdwan on 23rd December, 1992. The said samples were thereafter sent to the Government Analyst for test and analysis was done on 3.11.92 after a lapse of 11 days from the date of taking such samples. The Government Analyst of the Central Drugs Laboratory on analysis found Paracetamol totally absent in the sample which according to him was spurious, misbranded and adulterated vide his report in Form 13 under No. 13-2/92 P & P/W.B. 92 dated 13.1.93. The Government Analyst forwarded the said report to the complainant/opposite party No.1 under letter No.13/2/92-P & P/W.B.-90/6779 dated 5.2.93. It appears that the said report was received by the complainant on 16.7.96 and copy of the same was sent to the accused manufacturing company on 25.7.96 and another copy was sent to the District Reserve Stores, Burdwan. Having received the said report the complaint was filed in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barasat alleging commission of offences under sections 27 and 28A of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940. On receipt of such petition of complaint the learned Magistrate by his order dated 4.12.96 took cognizance of the offence and on a prayer made by the complainant issued search warrant for recovery of some documents. It is at this stage the petitioner came up before this Court praying for quashing of the proceeding.