RAM NARAIN Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts giving rise to this revision petition are as under : On 11th August, 1964, Satinder Paul Singh Drugs Inspector went to the shop of Pehlad Rai respondent No. 3, proprietor of Banarsi Das-Pehlad Rai, Narnaul Rai was present at the shop. Three samples of drugs were taken into possession by the Drugs Inspector for analysis under Section 22(2)(b) of the Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940, which were forwarded to the Government Analyst, at Chandigarh. One of those samples, No. G-46/64 Nanne Munne Mixture, Batch No. 3212, which was said to be have been manufactured by Messrs Parbhat Chemicals Company 47 Industrial Area, Fardiabad, was declared as not of standard quality due to the presence of suspended matter in sample. Show-cause notice was issued to Pehlad Rai on 8th December, 1964, and he was asked for the attested copy of bill and warranty letter regarding the drug in question which was alleged to have been manufactured by Messrs Parbhat Chemical Company, one of the partners of which firm is the present petitioner, namely, Ram Narain. The notice also demanded cash credit memo as required under rule 65(4) and (5) of the Drugs and Cosmetic Rules, 1945. Pehlad Rai failed to furnish the record of sale and purchase and warranty letter, or any account maintained by him as required under the rules mentioned above. The drugs Inspector then filed a complaint against Pehlad Rai under Section 32 of the Act in the Court of Shri Rampaul Singh, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Narnaul, alleging that Pehlad Rai had failed to maintain the accounts and record under rule 65(4) and (5) of the Rules and as such had contravened the provisions of Section 27(b) of the Act. During the pendency of the trial, however, the Chief Judicial Magistrate summoned Ram Narain petitioner as an accused under Section 32-A of the Act on 4th August, 1965, on the allegation that the Drug in question was labelled and manufactures by Parbhat Chemical Company. After recording some evidence, he framed charge against both of them, namely, Pehlad Rai and Ram Narain, petitioner, which runs as under -

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was no evidence whatsoever on the basis of which it could be said that the adulterated stuff was manufactured by the said Parbhat Chemical Company, Delhi, whose partner was Ram Narain petitioner. He submitted that no records were kept by Pehlad Rai to show that the adulterated stiff was purchased by him from this company. In reply to the notice, Pehlad Rai stated that Nanne Munne Gripe Mixture was purchased from the agent of Parbhat Chemical Company mentioned above, but even the name of the agent is not given. The Drugs Inspector in his statement stated that he went to the premises of Pehlad Rai but could not find any evidence that the stuff in question was sold by the said company to Pehlad Rai. As stated above, it was the bald statement to Pahlad Rai that the adulterated stuff was purchased by him from the petitioner's company, which is not supported by any material on the record whatsoever. It is well known that the statement of a co-accused is admissible against the other accused, but it is hardly of any value. In what circumstances the High Court should interfere under the provisions of Section 561-A of the Chemical Procedure Code has been laid down by the Supreme Court in R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, 1960 AIR(SC) 866. Following that I feel that even if the entire evidence produced by the prosecution is believed, it would not disclose any offence against the petitioner. The learned counsel for the State submitted that some evidence is yet to be recorded and, therefore, the charge at this stage should not be quashed. But if any evidence was still to be recorded then the proper course for the prosecution was to let that evidence also come on the record and then to ask for framing the charge if sufficient material was found. What has to be seen is whether on the evidence on the record at present, there is any jurisdiction for framing the charge against the petitioner. As I have said above, there is none.

(3.) I, therefore, accept this petition and quash the charge framed against the petitioner Ram Narain. The case shall proceed against Pehlad Rai according to law.