JITENDER KUMAR NAGAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 3rd May. 1985, Shri R.M. Sharma, District Drugs Inspector, Gurgaon, accompanied by Chief Medical Officer and others inspected the shop of Jitender Kumar Nagar, accused-petitioner, located in the main bazar of village Malab and found the accused doing medical practice without licence. On inquiry, the accused disclosed that he was not a registered medical practitioner. Nineteen kinds of allopathic drugs and five empty vials of injection marked as CGS supply not for sale were recovered from his shop duly displayed for sale. These were taken into possession. In addition, 5 X 5 ml sealed vials with Chloramphanicol Ear drops were also purchased as sample for analysis. The accused failed to show the purchase bills of any of the above drags. The samples were sent for test. Thereafter, on 6th May, 1935, to the Pubic Analyst Haryana, notice was given to the accused under was given registered cover but it was received back undelivered with the remarks that the accused had gone out of station.

(2.) THEREAFTER , the report of the Public Analyst was also received regarding the sample being of sub-standard quality. Again, a notice was also sent to the accused under registered cover, but it also remained undelivered with the report that the accused had left the place. On these facts, a case under Section 420, Indian Penal Code, was got registered against the petitioner vide F.I.R. No. 1 dated 3-5-1985. During the pendency of this case, the Drugs Inspector also filed a complaint (Annexure P-2) on 14.5.1996, for offences punishable under sections 27 and 18 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, for violation of the provisions of sections 16, 18 (a), 18 (c) 27 (d), read with rule 16 and 2 (ee) of the Rules, 1945. The accused was acquitted of the offence punishable under section 420, Indian Penal Code, by the Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon, vide dated 8-5-1987 (Annexure P-1).

(3.) THE trial Court, however, continued trying the complaint case under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act as a warrant case. The accused-petitioner then moved an application for dropping the proceedings as the trial had been vitiated due to the non-compliance of the provisions of section 36-A of the Act, providing the trial of the case in a summary manner. The learned trial Court partly accepted this application and directed that the case shall be tried as a summary case and adjourned it for 2-4-1991 for consideration of giving notice to the accused.