MADAN LAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By these 9 revision petitions, the 5 petitioners all challenge the judgments and orders of the learned Courts below, by which they have been convicted for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 27 (a) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years each, and have also each been imposed a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of which each/any of them is to undergo further simple imprisonment for 6 months.

(2.) It needs to be first of all elaborated that other than petitioner Madan Lal, all the other four petitioners have filed two revision petitions each before this Court, which is on account of the fact that two criminal complaints were instituted by the complainant (Drug Inspector, Faridabad) against all four of them, the first arising out of the inspection carried out upon the premises of petitioner Madan Lal (Proprietor of M/s Harsh Surgical and Medicine Centre), and the drug in question (Injection Mannitol) having been purchased and "seized" from him on 13.11.2003. He disclosed the name of the person from whose firm he had purchased it, that being M/s J.P. Medical Agency, its Proprietor being Jitender Kumar who then disclosed that he had purchased it from M/s S.K. Enterprises, Rohtak, (of which the petitioner Sushil Bansal is stated to be the Proprietor), who eventually disclosed that he had purchased it from the manufacturer, i.e. M/s Ess Jee Pharmaceuticals, the Proprietor and authorised signatory of that firm being petitioners G.C. Gupta and S.C. Gupta respectively. Hence, as regards the drug obtained by the complainants on 13.11.2003, Criminal Complaint no.1419 of 2005 was instituted, and upon conviction of all the accused as were tried before the trial Court, they filed separate appeals, which were heard by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, all the appeals having been decided on 09.11.2017. The details of the appeals filed against the judgment in that complaint, are as follows:-

(3.) The second set of revision petitions arise from Criminal Complaint no.1418 of 2005, in which Madan Lal was not an accused because upon he having disclosed on 13.11.2003 that he had purchased the drug in question from M/s J.P. Medical Agency, on the next day, i.e. on 14.11.2003, the team of Drug Inspectors also inspected the premises of the said firm (M/s J.P.Medical Agency) and obtained the same drug, which was also prima-facie found to be not conforming to standards; and consequently, was also sent for analysis to the Government Analyst, as was the drug obtained from the petitioner Madan Lals' firm on 13.11.2003.