OM PRAKASH AGARWAL Vs. S KULLU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court, has prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding as well as the orders dated 11.9.1997 and 23.9.1997 issuing warrant of arrest and processes against him.

(2.) SOME factual backgrounds are necessary to be portrayed before appreciating the arguments of the counsel for the parties : The Additional Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, Chaibasa, respondent No. 1. submitted a written report to the Officer Incharge, Sadar police station drawing his attention to the fact that there was rumour in the air about spurious drugs being stored in the stores of the Civil Surgeon, Sadar Hospital. He requested the Civil Surgeon of the hospital to get the drugs lying in his store tested by the Government analyst. It so happened that on 16.4.1993, as the Drug Inspector of Chaibasa was not available in the headquarters, the Civil Surgeon wrote a letter to Sri Surjit Kumar Mukhopadhyaya. Drug Inspector of Jamshedpur to visit the store in question and take samples from the store. On such request being made said Mukhopadhyaya came down to Chaibasa on 17. 4.1993 and took samples of various drugs from the medicine store of the Civil Surgeon and also from the Sadar Hospital in presence of respondent No. 1, one Madan Sengupta, P.A. to the Deputy Commissioner, West Singhbum and some other gentlemen like the Civil Surgeon, Dy. S.P. and Store Incharge -cum -Medical Officer. Sri Mukhopadhyaya particularly took the sample of sulphaquandin tablets I.P. bearing batch number and date, after observing all the formalities as required under law. Samples were sent to the Govt. Analyst, Central, Indian Pharmacopia, Gaziabad (U.P.) for testing. The report of the Government Analyst revealed that the drug was not of standard quality and the samples of drugs was spurious inasmuch it gave negative test for sulphaquandin. Sri Mukhopadhyaya, the Drug Inspector requested in writing to the civil surgeon to disclose the name of the supplier (seller) and other details and on his request the civil surgeon, by his letter dated 13.10.93, disclosed the name of the seller and manufacturer who are: 1. M/s. Chem Tech Pharma, Lakhisarai, PS - -Lakhisarai, Distt - - Munger. 2. Avon Laboratories, 529/A.l., G.T. Road P.O. and Mahesh, distt. Hoogly (W.B.). Under this circumstance, respondent No. 1 informed the police that the aforesaid seller and manufacturer have committed offences under Secs. 275. and 274 I.P.C. respectively and requested to take action against them. This information is dated 23.11.1993. The relevant documents have also been annexed with the written report. On the basis of the said report, the police registered a case under Secs. 27/28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) read with Secs. 275. and 274 of the Penal Code.

(3.) THE investigation started and in course of investigation on the petitioner filed by the Investigating Officer, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate issued warrant of arrest against the accused persons but in spite of that when the accused persons did not appear, the learned Magistrate issued distress warrant on the request made by the investigating agency.