RAGHUNATH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A complaint under Section 27 read with Section 18(a)(iia) and Section 2(a)(i) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (Annexure P.1) and filed by the Drug Inspector, Gurdaspur, against Yogesh Kumar, proprietor of M/s. Swagat Pharma, Batala, Gursharan Singh, partner of M/s. Katari Medical Store, Amritsar and the present petitioner Raghunath, proprietor of M/s. Gulati Pharmacy, Amritsar, on the allegations that the complainant seized sample of glycerine I.P. Batch No. 240 from the shop of Yogesh Kumar, which, on analysis, was found to be adulterated. Against Gursharan Singh, partner of M/s. Katari Medical Store, it was alleged that the stock of glycerine was purchased by Yogesh Kumar from his shop. Gursharan Singh in his turn alleged that he had purchased the stock from the petitioner Raghu Nath. It was said that M/s. Gulati Pharmacy, Amritsar had manufactured the glycerine. The trial Magistrate framed charges against all the three accused but in revision the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, vide an order dated May 3, 1985 (Annexure P.4) discharged Yogesh Kumar and Gursharan Singh accused but dismissed the revision of the petitioner. Now the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by Raghu Nath for quashing the complaint (Annexure P.1) as well as the order of the framing of charge by the trial Magistrate and the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur.

(2.) IT is contended by the learned Presiding Officer's counsel that the identification of the sample which was analysed by the Government Analyst, Punjab, Chandigarh, has not been established and there is no material on the record to show that it is the same sample which was seized from the shop of M/s. Swagat Pharma. I find that this contention is not without merit. The Drug Inspector had admittedly purchased four bottles of glycerine as sample which were sealed by him. He gave one of the sample bottles to Yogesh Kumar accused, another to Kartari Medical Stores and the third was sent for analysis. The fourth sample was retained by the Drug Inspector. Dissatisfied with the report of the Government Analysis, Punjab, a request was made by the petitioner that the sample retained by the Drug Inspector be sent to the Central Drugs Laboratory at Calcutta. The trial Magistrate accordingly sent the 4th sample to the Central Drugs Laboratory on January 12, 1984. The sample was returned by the Director of the Laboratory on January 28, 1984 with the remark that the packet containing the sample as well as the outer cover did not bear any distinguishing number. The trial Magistrate again sent the sample on February 18, 1984 but all over again the Director, Central Drugs Laboratory returned the same on March 19, 1984 with the same report. A sample was sent third time on April 21, 1984 by the trial Magistrate which was eventually analysed by the Central Drugs Laboratory. However, on perusal of the record of the trial Court, I find no material to establish that the sample which was sent on the third occasion to the Central Drugs Laboratory, Calcutta, was the same which was seized by the Drug Inspector from the shop of M/s. Swagat Pharma. The learned Counsel appearing for the Punjab State frankly conceded that he cannot satisfy the Court in this respect. In such circumstances, the complaint as well as the charge against the Presiding Officer cannot be upheld.