M/S.MODERN LABORATORIES THROUGH ITS PARTNER ARUN K.KHARIA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH VIJAY K. GUPTA, INSPECTOR OF DRUGS CUM CHIEF HOSPITAL PHARMACIST, PMCH, PATNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER Arun Kumar Kharia, a partner of M/s Modern Laboratories, having its registered office at 45 Sector, D -2 Sanwar Road, Indore, Madhya Pradesh, has filed this application for quashing the order of cognizance dated 2.11.2004 passed in Complaint Case No. 3075(M)/2004 pending in the court of S.D.J.M., Patna, for his trial for commission of offence punishable under Sections 27, 17(b), 18(a)(i), (iv) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act ').

(2.) COGNIZANCE has been taken on receipt of official complaint from Sri Vijay Kumar Gupta, Inspector of Drugs -cum -Chief Hospital Pharmacist, P.M.C.H., Patna, who is opposite party here. Opposite party has filed a complaint against eight different manufacturers and suppliers of drugs for violation of the provisions of the said Act in which the name of this petitioner figures at Serial No. 3. The allegation in Para -10 of the complaint petition against this petitioner is that petitioner -firm manufactured Vitamin -B Complex Tablets and supplied the same through accused no. 4 to Chief Medical Officer on 23.3.2003 and also received payment. The said medicine was also supplied to M.L.A. Hospital, Patna. On 5.7.2003 the complainant -O.P. inspected the M.L.A. Hospital and collected various samples of drugs for test/analysis from the Store -keeper after observing all formalities, one portion of each sealed samples were received by the Store -keeper, in -charge of M. L.A. Hospital and further sample was sent to the Government Analyst, Bihar Drug Control Laboratories, Agamkuan, Patna. On receipt of the test report dated 10.9.2004 it was revealed that drug concerned with petitioner 'sVitamin -B Complex was found not of standard. So, the petitioner who is accused no. 3 alongwith the supplier accused no. 4 are alleged to have violated the provisions of Sections 18(a)(i)(2)(iv) and have committed offence under Sec. 27(d) of the Act.

(3.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.