HINDUSTAN LEVER LTD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal writ application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of the investigation by the police arising out of Malsalami P.S. Case No. 3 of 1996 under Section 22 (3) and 27 (b) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(2.) It appears that the First information Report has been filed by the Drug inspector (Opposite party No. 2) against the petitioner and two others alleging that a group of Drug Inspectors inspected the premises of M/s Sultania '& Sultania of Patna City who are C&F Agent of the present petitioner. The inspection was done on 6-9- 95 and it was found that 1,600 cartons, each carton containing 24 pieces, each piece containing 200 MI. floor cleaner, manufacfired by M/s San Soaps & Detergent, Bangalore and marketed by the present petitioner were found with packing date of December, 1994 having no batch number and expiry date. It is alleged in the First Information Report that M/s San Soaps & Detergent have manufactured the said floor cleaner without licence. The Drug inspector issued direction to the concerned firm not to dispose of the said articles. It is further alleged that the photostat copy of the manufacturing licence made available by the present petitioner revealed that the licence was granted to M/s San Soaps & Detergent on 18-5-95.The said floor cleaner is marketed by the present petitioner through its authorised agent M/s Sultania & Sultania, who failed to make available the documents regarding stock transfer note to the Drug inspector and they did not produce the same as such the M/s Sultania & Sultania have contravened the provisions of Section 22 (1) (ccc) which are punishable under section 22 (3) of the Act. As regards the present petitioner, the only allegation, was that the present petitioner is marketing the said floor cleaner through its agent M/s Sultania & Sultania without licence. Section 22 (c) of the Act shows that a Drug Inspector at all reasonable times, with such assistance, if any, as he considers necessary:-

(3.) Although in the First Information Report offence is alleged to be under section 22 (1) (c) (II) of the Act but from the facts alleged in the inspection it appears to be a case of contravention of provisions of section 22 (1) (cca) which empowers the Drug Inspector to require any person to produce any record, register, or other documents relating to the manufacture for sale or for distribution, stocking, exhibition for sale, offer for sale, or distribution of any drug or cosmetic in respect of which he has reason to believe that an offence under this Chapter has been, or is being committed.