LAL CHAND PATNI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State of Haryana through the District Drugs Inspector, Hissar filed a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hissar on 28.3.1995 (Annexure P-1) against the petitioners 1 to 3 herein and six others under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The relevant allegations in the complaint are as follows :-

(2.) ON 21.6.1994, the District Drugs Inspector, Hissar (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) accompanied by Dr. P.S. Dhawan, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Hissar and a Peon inspected the firm-M/s Kishan Medical Agencies, Hissar (9th accused), and its proprietor-Shri Kishan (8th accused) was present. During the inspection of the firm, the complainant found stock of sixteen bottles of Dextrose Injection IP 5%, which the complainant purchased for test and analysis. After complying with all the formalities, the complainant took the samples, sent the samples for chemical analysis and received test reports declaring that the samples sent were not of standard quality and contained fungus-like suspended matter. The complainant handed over notices along with the copies of the test reports to the 8th accused mentioned above. The 8th accused disclosed that he had purchased these drugs from the first accused-firm of which the accused 2 to 4 are partners. The complainant sent notices accompanied by copies of the test reports to the first accused-firm directing them to take the samples. The second accused-Lal Chand Patni came to the office of the complainant and collected the samples and the test reports under due acknowledgement, but submitted a reply on behalf of the firm challenging the test reports. The complainant also received the letters from the first accused-firm signed by the third accused showing the firm's intention to controvert the test reports.

(3.) ACCORDING to the complainant, accused 8 and 9 contravened the provisions of (1) Section 18(a)(i) read with Sections 16 and 17-A of the Act punishable under Section 27(a) of the Act; (2) Rule 65(6) punishable under Section 27(d) of the Act; and (3) Section 18-B of the Act punishable under Section 28-A of the Act.