DILLIP KUMAR RAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code has been filed challenging the order dated 1.9.98 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Keonjhar in 1(c) C.C. Case No. 26 of 1997 taking cognizance of offence committed under Section 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter called as 'the Act').

(2.) Case of the petitioner is that the prosecution has been initiated at the instance of the Drug Inspector, Keonjhar Range (opposite party No. 2) against the petitioner and several others on the following allegations : The opposite party No. 2 got a complaint from the proprietor of M/s. Mayur Medical Agencies, Mayur Market Complex. Keonjhargarh on 2.1.97 about sale of drug Cadotryl tablets manufactured by M/s. Crips Laboratories Ltd.. Vishakhaspatnam printed with stamp of "Central Government supply not for sale". After receipt of such a complaint the opposite party No. 2 along with other officials proceeded to the firm of the petitioner and on verification it was found that the petitioner's firm had purchased the above tablets from M/s. Pradhan Pharmaceuticals, Angul. On verification it was further found that the drug containing 10 tablets each are found to be packed in a blister pack strip and each strip bears the stamp of "Central Government supply not for sale" and over the said print a white paper sticker has been pasted with price printed thereon. On 3.1.97 the said drugs were seized and out of the seized tablets, 200 tablets were sent for test and analysis to the laboratory. The Government Analyst certified the drugs to be of standard quality. During course of further investigation it came to light that M/s. Pradhan Prarmaceuticals had purchased the tables from M/s. Sampatrai Subash Kumar, Cuttack and M/s Sampatrai Subash Kumar had purchased the drugs from M/s. Auro Enterprisers. Cuttack. Intimation given to M/s. Auro Enterprisers could not be served and the letter returned back unserved. Thereafter, enquiries were made from M/s. Crips Laboratories Ltd., Vishaskhapatnam and the manufacturer replied that the said batch Cadotryl tablets were manufactured with an intention to supply to the State Government institutions and accordingly labels were affixed with the packets as Central Government supply, in short "C.G.S. not for sale". But the Government did not place any order for supply of the said tablets in spite of repeated requests and the tablets were required to be used before expiry of date and therefore the manufacturer thought it appropriate to dispose of the stock by delivering the same to the traders and while deciding to do so, the C.G.S. stamp on the blister pack was to be wiped out and the price was to be pasted on the same. However, packing Section of the manufacturer due to its negligence instead of wiping out the endorsement fixed price sticker on the blister pack which has resulted in the confusion. However, the Drug Inspector not being satisfied with the explanation given by the manufacturer lodged prosecution against the petitioner and several others for violation of the provisions contained in Section 18 and/or 27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.

(3.) Shri Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that even accepting the prosecution allegations to be correct, no offence under Sections 18 and 27 of the Act is made out. According to him, drugs were manufactured by M/s. Crips Laboratories Limited, Viskhapatnam and the stickers were fixed by the manufacturer itself as admitted by it. Therefore, offence if any was committed by the manufacturer and not by the petitioner which had purchased it from another stockist for the purpose of sale, He further submitted that the sanctioning authority has not applied his mind while according sanction for prosecution. Reliance has been placed by Sri Nayak on the three decisions reported in (1999) 16 O.C.R. 379 (Kailash Chandra Das v. State of Orissa); 1998 SAR (Cri.) 493 (State of Haryana v. Brij Lal Mittal and others; and (1998) 15 OCR 33 (Rajendra Kumar Mohanty v. P.K. Das). Learned Additional Government Advocate referring to the relevant Section submitted that since the petitioner was offering for sale of the aforesaid drugs, offence under Sections 18 and 27 of the Act are made out and, therefore, this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction should not interfere with the order taking cognizance.