MEHAR CHAND DATTA Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There is no merit in this writ petition. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner herein, under Annexure P -4 by the Assistant Drugs Controller, Himachal Pradesh. He referred to the raiding of the petitioners premises by the Drugs Inspector on 4 -11 -1995 at 2 30 p m. It was found at that time that the petitioner was selling Pheneedyl Cough Syrup B No 1137, which is a Schedule H drug to one Shri Vishal Sharma son of Shri N. L Sharma without prescription of a registered medical practitioner, which is in contravention of Rule 65 (9) (a) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules. 1945 Apart from that certain other violations of the Rules are pointed out in the show cause notice. In the notice, the petitioner was called upon to show cause why his retail drugs licence should not be suspended for the various contraventions mentioned in the notice, He was requested to give a reply within seven days from the receipt of the said notice. The petitioner sent a reply under Annexure P -5, in which he denied wholesale averments contained in the show cause notice, but in paragraph 5, he stated as follows : "it is regretted to point out that the sale of Schedule H drugs is made without prescription of a registered medical practitioner. -

(2.) He has further stated in that reply that all sales are made under the direct supervision of himself and his son Sanjay Datta, who are both registered Pharmacists, According to the reply, in his absence, his son also supervises the sale and whenever both of them are out of station, the premises were kept closed,

(3.) There was no contention in the said reply that the sales were effected through some agent or an employee. On the other hand, the specific case of the petitioner is that all the sales were made under his supervision or his sons supervision.