RANENDRA NATH NEOGY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from an order of Sinha, J., dated the 21st November, 1963 summarily ojecting an application under Article 226 of the Constitution asking for a writ in the nature of prohibition.

(2.) The appelant Stated a drug manufacturing business under the name and style of Messrs. Vitamin Laboratories, in 1946 at "Sukchar in the District of 24 Parganas Later on he transferred his business to 43/2B; Baghbazar Street, Calcutia, which apparently bore another municipal number being 16/2 Mahendra Bose Lane, Bagbazar, Calcutta: In 1948 the Government of West Bengal introduced the licensing, system for the manufacture of drugs. The issuing of such licences and renewal thereof are regulated by the provisions of the Drugs Act. 1940 and the Drug Rules of 1945 framed under the said Act. The appellant was granted licences for manufacture of biological and non-biological medicines in 1948 and such licences were for a period of two years and were renewed in the years 1950, 1952 and 1954. On the 29th October, 1954 the appellant received a letter from the Drug Licensing Authority directing him to slop the manufacturing of medicines immediately, on the ground, that the appellant was manufacturing drugs at 43/2B Bagbazar Street instead of 16/2 Mahendra Buse Lane which was the, address recorded in the licence and that he was not observing the conditions of the licence and the provisions of the Drug Rules. Thereafter certain correspondence followed and on the 20th November, 1954 he appellant received another letter from the Drug Licensing Officer that his applications for renewal of licences, dated the 8th September, 1954 and 22nd September, 1954 had been cancelled under the Drugs Act, 1940 for reasons and defects set out in that letter and the appellant was asked to remove the defects and thereafter to apply again within six months, for renewal of his licences, after depositing the prescribed fees, and until then the appellant was not to manufacture drugs and if he did so, legal action would be taken against him. It is alleged that thereafter upon removal of certain defects the licences of the petitioner were renewed for the year 1956 for a period of two years. Thereafter the appellant filed further applications for renewal of licence on the 27th November 1958, 5th September 1960, 19th September 1960, and also for the year 1962, but no renewal was granted for the periods 1958, 1960 and 1962 in spite of several representations made for the purpose. On or about the 18th May 1960, a petition of complaint was filed by Dr. Somendra Nath Dattta, Inspector of Drugs, Government of West Bengal in the Court of the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta for the prosecution of the appellant under Section 27 of the Drugs Act read with Sections 18 (a) (i), 18 (a) (ii) and 18 (c) of the Drugs Act, 1940. In this petition of complaint It is inter alia stated that on the 11th December, 1959 Shri M. S. Saha, an Inspector of Drugs took a sample of 'water for injection' B. P. Batch No. 321 manufactured by the Vitamin Laboratories from Messrs. Cross Max and Co. of 21 Patakdanga Street, Calcutta, for test and analysts, and the Government Analyst, West Bengal, reported that the drug was not of standard quality.

(3.) On the 5th February, 1960 the complainant Dr. Datta assisted by several inspectors of Drugs searched the premises of the firm Vitamin Laboratories in the presence of search witnesses and found water for injection B. P. ampoules being manufactured, with a stock of such finished ampoules in boxes ready for sale and seized the stock of the finished products and also certain ualabelled, filled and sealed ampoules, and empty ampoules; and certain apparatus and appliances, etc., and prepared a seizure list. On the same date the 5th February, 1960, Dr. Datta took a sample of water for injection and sent the said sample to the Government Analyst for report. The Government Analyst reported that the drug was not of standard quality. A copy of this report was sent to the appellant. It was also found on the 5th February, 1960 in course of the search and seizure that the finished water for injection B. P. ampoules bore labels without the date of manufacture as required under the Drug Rules. It further appeared from search of the records of the Drug Licensing Officer, West Bengal, that the appellant had no licence for manufacture for sale, sock for sale and sale of drugs from premises No. 13/2B Bagbazar Street Calcutta, In the circumstances, the appellant was alleged to be manufacturing for sale, stocking for sale and selling water for injection without necessary licence for the premises No. 43/2B Bagbazar Street thereby contravening Section 18 (c) of the Drugs Act and was punishable under Section 27 of the Drugs Act. The further charge was that the appellant had manufactured for sale, stocked for sale and sold misbranded 'water for injection' B. P. contravening Section 18 (a) (ii) read with Section 17 (a) of the Drugs Act and was as such punishable under Section 27 of the Act. The further charge was that the appellant had manufactured for sale, stocked for sale and sold 'water for injection' B. P. 10 cc. ampoules not of standard quality thereby contravening Section 18 (a) (i) of the Drugs Act punishable under Section 27 of the Act. This criminal case came to be tried by Sri S. K. Sanyal Presidency Magistrate (9th Court) Calcutta and on the 4th March, 1961 the appellant was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence committed under Section 18 (a) (i) of the Drugs Act read with Section 27. The appellant was further convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500 and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months for being found guilty under Section 27 of the Act read with Section 18 (c) thereof. The appellant was further convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200 and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month for being found guilty under Section 27 of the Act read with Section 18 (a) (ii) of the Act. The appellant thereupon deposited the said fine of Rs. 1,700 and preferred an appeal to this High Court being criminal appeal No. 514 of 1961 and the said appeal is still pending for hearing before this Court.