SULOCHNA DEVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner through this application seeks the quashing of the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Complaint Case No. 2 -C4 of 2003 including the order dated 7.6.2003 passed therein by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Munger, whereby he has taken cognizance of offence under Section 27(a) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) The Drug Inspector, Munger, impleaded herein as O.P. No. 2 filed the aforesaid prosecution report alleging that on 24.8.2000 an inspection of the Drugs Store of Munger Sadar Hospital was carried out in the presence of Regional Licensing Authority and other officials, in course whereof samples of four drugs were collected and sent to the Government Analyser at Ghaziabad in U.P. The sample of Doxycycline Cap. I.P. (100 mg) Batch No. 22 Mfg. date -January, 2000, Expiry date - December, 2001, manufactured by M/s Pravin Pharma, Mumbai, was found to be below standard. It was further alleged that an opportunity was given to M/s Pravin Pharma to explain the circumstances vide letter dated 21.6.2001 to which a reminder was sent through letter dated 18.7.2001. Eventually an explanation was submitted by M/s Pravin Pharma after withdrawing the medicines from the market. It was also alleged that the sale of the aforesaid medicines was made by M/s Mount Pharma, Tripolia Gate, Patna -7 to the Superintendent, Sadar Hospital, Munger. The Drug Controller, Bihar at Patna was appraised by letter dated 6.8.2001 of the situation and permission was sought for prosecution of the accused institution. It was alleged that M/s Pravin Pharma had manufactured and sold drugs which were not of standard quality and was in violation of Section 18(a)(1) of the Act and was punishable under Section 27 of the Act and M/s Mount Pharma by selling the below standard medicines had contravened the provisions of Section 18(a) (1) of the Act and liable to punishment under Section 27 of the Act.

(3.) IT has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the Drug Inspector had sought permission from the Drug Controller, Bihar, for initiating prosecution against the manufacturer only but the permission letter annexed to the prosecution report clearly shows that permission was accorded on the basis of letter dated 3.9.2001 issued by the Regional Licensing Authority, Munger, whereas by the said letter permission was sought to prosecute M/s Pravin Pharma only and this only goes to show that the petitioner had been dragged in the present case by the local officials with an ulterior motive.