SURESH SOOD Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Drug Inspector for Kangra and Chamba alongwith the police inspected the premises of petitioner/accused Suresh Sood being run in the name and style of M/S Modern Medical Store, Palampur, District Kangra (HP) on 30/8/2006. The petitioner/accused Suresh Sood was present at the time of the inspection. The search of the premises was conducted in the presence of witnesses Anil Sood, Sanjeev Chauhan (SHO Palampur), Anil Nagpal, and Parkash Chand. During the search,certain boxes of drugs were found on the premises. The petitioner Suresh Sood was asked to produce purchase and sale records of the drugs as required under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the Rules framed thereunder. However, he could not produce any sales records. Hence, the Drug Inspector seized the drugs in the presence of witnesses. These were put in a box, which was sealed and labelled as per the law. A Form No.16 was filled on the spot and its copy was handed over to the petitioner. Custody orders were obtained from the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra at Dharamshala. A show cause notice was served upon the petitioner/accused Suresh Sood on 14/9/2006. He sent a reply on 21/9/2006 and submitted purchase invoices No. 4002 dtd. 31/7/2006 and 4201 dtd. 5/8/2006 of one Ms/ Royal Medicare, 19, Dewan Hall, Bhagirath Palace, Delhi- 110006. The matter was taken up with the State Drugs Controller, Delhi, Drug Control Administration who reported that no such concern existed at the address furnished in the invoice. Permission to launch the prosecution was sought, which was granted by the Drug Controlling Authority on 5/2/2009. The accused-petitioner contravened Sec. 18(c), 18(a)(vi) and 18-A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, by stocking or exhibiting allopathic drugs for sale in violation of the conditions of the licence, which is punishable under Sec. 27(d) and 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940. Hence, the complaint was filed before the Court.

(2.) The learned Trial Court summoned the petitioner/accused. The petitioner filed an application under Sec. 227 of Cr.P.C. seeking his discharge. It was asserted that the Drugs Inspector who had raided the premises of the accused was the same person who had given prosecution sanction. The premises of the accused was searched in the year 2006, however, the complaint was not filed till 28/8/2010 and the complaint is barred by limitation. Hence, it was prayed that the petitioner/accused be discharged.

(3.) The learned Trial Court held that prosecution was sanctioned in the year 2010 and the complaint was filed in the year 2011. The case is covered under Sec. 470(3) of Cr.P.C. The prosecution sanction was given by Drugs Controller Authority whereas the raid was conducted by the Drugs Inspector. Hence, the prosecution sanction was not bad. There was sufficient material on record to frame charges against the petitioner. Hence, the learned Trial Court framed the charges against the petitioner/accused for the offence punishable under Ss. 27(d) and 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.