RAJESH BANSAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been preferred under Sec. 528 of BNSS, 2023, seeking quashing of criminal complaint No.CIA COMA/41336/2022 dtd. 9/6/2022, titled as "State through Drugs Control Officer, Ludhiana vs Rajesh Bansal and others", filed under Sec. 18(c), punishable under Sec. 18(a)(i), punishable under Sec. 27(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and Rules, 1945, before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana as well as the summoning order dtd. 10/6/2022 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana, and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that on 27/6/2018, the Drugs Inspector conducted an inspection at M/s. TSM Medicare, during which the drug Apclox-LB was seized and sent for testing. The test results showed that the drug did not meet the required standard, containing only 80.37% of the claimed Cloxacillin Sodium. M/s. TSM Medicare explained that the drug had been supplied by M/s. Aviv Pharma Distributors, who, in turn, blamed M/s. The Distributors House for the issue, which ultimately traced the drug's purchase to M/s. Ridley Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. As a result of further investigation, M/s. Ridley Life Sciences had their license suspended from 11/1/2020 to 31/1/2020. On 18/6/2020, prosecution sanction was granted, and thereafter, the complaint (supra) was filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Director of M/s Ridley Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. should not be held responsible for the substandard quality of the drug Apclox-LB, as the drug was purchased from M/s. The Distributors House, and there is no evidence showing any negligence on the part of the petitioner. The petitioner was simply a distributor and had no role in manufacturing or quality control. Moreover, the 21-day suspension of their license, imposed by the Drug Licensing Authority, was a sufficient corrective measure. The petitioner has fully cooperated with the investigation and taken the necessary steps to address the issue. Further there is no direct evidence of criminal intent against the petitioner and thus, the prosecution sanction is premature, and criminal proceedings are unnecessary. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the learned trial Court has wrongly summoned the petitioner without properly considering the discrepancies, leading to wrongful initiation of legal proceedings.