RANJIT CHATTERJEE Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ranjit Chatterjee, the appellant before us, feels aggrieved with his conviction under S.27(a)(ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940 read with S.18(c) of the said Act and imposition of the sentence of eight years R.I. and to a fine of rupees one thousand, in default, to further R.I. for one hundred days in Sessions Case No.3(3) 80 by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Alipore. In the said Sessions case there was another accused viz. M/s. Hindusthan Medical Services Private Limited. Ranjit Chatterjee has been imposed the sentence spoken of for himself and for the other accused for which he was found to be the owner and Proprietor. Both the accused were acquitted of the charge under S.27(b) of the aforesaid Act which was also framed at the commencement of the trial. Outline of the prosecution case may be given as follows.

(2.) Mr. R. Chakraborty, an Inspector of Drugs, West Bengal received an information on 2-4-74 and inspected and searched the selling premises of M/s. New Medical Hall at Bagrahat, 24 Parganas and found a stock of medicines styled as Perviron and Pervilex which were the products of the accused company M/s. Hindusthan Medical Services Private Ltd. The proprietor of the selling concern Shri Madan Mohan Hazra (P.W.5) was present on the spot. From Madan Mohan Hazra, Inspector came to know that formerly he had purchased those medicines by placing order with one Mr. Sunil Ghosal (P.W.3), a local resident under different invoices in the year 1975-76. Subsequently on enquiry from the office of the Director of Drugs Control, West Bengal, the Inspector came to know that the said accused company M/s. Hindusthan Medical Services Private Ltd. had drug manufacturing licences previously under D.L. No.838 M-D.L. No.325-MB but that the said licences were rejected on 9-9-74. Thereafter on 9-4-1976 the Inspector along with his colleagues (P.Ws.4 and 7) inspected the premises of M/s. Hindusthan Medical Services Private Ltd. at 119-A, Bangur Avenue and there a stock of raw materials having current dates of manufacturing, used and unused labels of different products, used invoice books and one order book were recovered from the accused company. Shri Ranjit Chatterjee, the accused-appellant who claimed to be the Managing Director of the accused company was physically present at the time of the said inspection by the Inspector. On 22-4-76 the Inspector inspected the said premises again and searched the aforesaid raw materials, records and other documents in accordance with the provisions of law. On 29-4-76 the complainant again visited the premises of M/s. New Medical hall at Bakrahat and seized the medicines styled as Perviron and Pervilex. On 30-4-76 the Inspector took into custody the aforesaid goods under order of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore. Thereafter in due course, the samples of both the medicines were sent to the Govt. Analyst who subsequently opined the medicine to be of sub-standard quality. Thereafter the Inspector filed his complaint before the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore who took cognizance of the offence and summoned the accused-appellants under Ss.27(a) and 27(b) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 giving rise to the Complaint Case No.162 of 1979. The accused-appellant duly appeared before the learned Magistrate and were released on bail. The learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, however, took the view that the case was triable by the court of Session exclusively and as such he committed the case to the learned Sessions Judge, 24 Parganas on 30-5-80 for trial in terms of S.209 Cr.P.C. The Sessions Judge, thereafter, started Sessions Case No.4 of June 1980 against both the accused-appellants and there in the Sessions Court they were released on bail. The charges were framed against both the accused under S.27(a)(ii) read with S.18(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and also under S.27(b) read with S.18(c) of the said Act. In course of the trial, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge examined as many as 12 witnesses with the result as already indicated before.

(3.) Mr. Sumit Maitra, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant contends with all the emphasis at his command that the Sessions trial itself was totally mis-conceived and the Assistant Sessions Judge had no power or jurisdiction to hold the trial or to convict the accused in the way he did. In his contention Mr. Maitra emphasises that the conviction in the present case was under S.27(a)(ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940. The said section reads as follows: