GHANSHYAM SARDA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present application has been filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for quashing of proceedings in G.R. case No. 2124 of 2006 pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 3rd Court, Calcutta arising out of Bowbazar Police Station/D.D. Case No. 344/2006 dated 27.09.2006 under Sections 120B/406/420/467/468/469/471/270 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13 and 27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and all orders passed therein.

(2.) The fact of the Bowbazar Police Station/D.D./Case No. 344 dated 27.09.2006 is that Monozyme India Limited which is a company that supplies drugs and cosmetics to various medical establishments in India, supplied medical diagnostics kits to eight regional Blood Transfusion Centres. It was alleged that the kits did not contain any mention of expiry dates on the individual pouches. On receipt of the complaint, a preliminary enquiry was made on September 19, 2006 and September 20, 2006 at IBTML and NRS Medical College Blood Bank when it was detected that the kits supplied by the said company had manufacture date, expiry date, lot number printed on the outer packets but the same were missing on the inner pouches. Hence there was violation of relevant provisions of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. Random tests were made to check the efficacy of the kits and it was found that the kits suffer from lack of sensitivity thus purporting to be not of standard quality. Thus, the company, its Directors, Managing Directors and others were accused of commission of the alleged crime. That after conclusion of investigation a charge sheet was submitted in 2006 followed by a supplementary charge sheet in 2008. In the said charge sheets the case made out is that the accused persons being the Managing Director, Directors of the Company and others hatched up a criminal conspiracy and in pursuance thereof sometimes in December, 2004 onwards managed to obtain orders for supply of Medical Diagnostic Kits.

(3.) Challenging the order passed by the learned Trial Court on the basis of charge sheet submitted by the prosecution, the present revisional application has been filed, on the grounds that the alleged criminal conspiracy was hatched and orders were obtained in December, 2004 that is about one year four months prior to the petitioners becoming an Additional Director of the accused company. Secondly that period alleged in the charge sheets as the time of commission of offence namely the appointment of petitioner as Additional Director which was as late as in April, 2006 and hence makes it patently absurd, improbable for the petitioner to be a part of any alleged conspiracy to commit and/or participate in the alleged crimes. And thirdly it has not been alleged in the charge sheet/supplementary charge sheet and there is absolutely nothing on record to establish in any manner whatsoever that even during his brief period of about five months as Additional Director of the Company, the petitioner was in any way in-charge of and/or was responsible to the accused company for running its day to day business including supplying the said kits to the Government institutions whatsoever.