LAWS(HPH)-2017-5-76

ULTRATEC PHARMACEUTICAL AND OTHERS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On May 09, 2017
Ultratec Pharmaceutical And Others Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present criminal revision is maintained under Section 397 read with section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for setting aside the summoning order dated 18.4.2015 in criminal complaint No. 123/3 of 2015 in case titled Union of India Versus M/s Ultratech Pharmaceuticals and Ors.

(2.) Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that as per the prosecution story on 11.11.2013 the respondent lifted samples of drugs for test/analysis from Government Analyst, including the subject matter of the complaint, i.e, CP-200 tab manufactured by M/s Ultratech Pharmaceuticals, village Tipra, Haripur Road, Post Office Barotiwala, District Solan, HP. Thereafter one sealed sample, portion of the drug in question, was sent to Government Analyst i.e, Regional Drugs Testing in Laboratory, Sector 39 C Chandigarh. The respondent received the test report of C- Biotec Ear Drop as "Not of Standard Quality" vide Test Report No. RDTL/627/13-14, dated 13.5.2014 as the sample does not conform the IP 2010 standard with respect to "Dissolution".

(3.) As per prosecution, the accused No. 1 to 9 are responsible for the conduct of the business of the firm and they are manufactures of the drug and they are liable for manufacturing substandard drug and accordingly the learned Court below issued the summons to all the petitioners as to appear before the Court below on the basis of material before the Court below for offence. The petitioners in the present petition have averred that no material was there before the Court below to issue summons to the petitioners who were the accused in the complaint maintained by the respondent and the order passed by the Court below is against the law. It is their case that the learned ACJM Nalagarh, District Solan H.P. without going through the allegations made in the complaint took cognizance and issued process against the petitioners which is against the law. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents.