OPERATIONS Vs. STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Transfer of Complaint, bearing File no.01/A, titled as State through Drug Inspector v. Akhil Gadoo and others, from the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge (TADA/POTA) Srinagar, designated Special Court under Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (for brevity "court below") to the court of Special Judge (Anti-Corruption Cases), Jammu, is implored for in the application in hand.

(2.) The case summarized by the applicant is that applicant is duly registered global pharmaceutical company operating since 1969, and manufacturing various drugs. It is being maintained that applicant came to know through media reports that certain samples of drugs lifted from government hospitals had been declared as "Not of Standard Quality" by the Government Analyst of the Drugs Laboratory under the Drugs and Food Control Organisation, which included the drug, named as Maximizin 625 (Amoxicillin Trihydrate and Potassium Clavunate) Batch no.PBT 1583, allegedly manufactured by applicant-company and supplied by M/s Lifeline Pharmaco Surgicals. It is being claimed by applicant that he enquired and found that M/s Lifeline Pharmaco Surgicals - proforma respondent herein, has used forged, fabricated and tampered authorisation certificate/reports of applicant-company, to avail the tender for supply of the aforesaid drugs to government hospitals and that in this regard applicant-company also issued a clarification that applicant has not authorised any party directly or indirectly to supply the above drug to the hospitals in J&K. It is being further averred that in view of seriousness of the matter, the Government constituted a three members Committee vide Order no. 239-HME of 2013 dtd. 4/4/2013, which reported that M/s Lifeline Pharmaco Surgical used forged, fabricated and tampered authorisation certificate/reports of applicant-company and that in pursuance of communication no.PS/CS/H&ME/76/2013 dtd. 20/4/2013, an FIR no.10/2013 came to be registered in police station Crime Branch Jammu for commission of offences punishable under Ss. 274, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B RPC read with Sec. 5(2) P. C. Act, Sec. 27 of Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940. Notwithstanding this fact, it is next stated by applicant, the Drugs Departments without waiting for completion of investigation by the Crime Branch, hastened to file a complaint before the court below, implicating therein applicant-company as one of the accused in the complaint with the allegations that applicant has conspired with other accused persons in manufacture, marketing and distribution of spurious drugs for commission of offences under Sec. 17 B, 18 (a) (I) read with Sec. 27(a) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940.

(3.) Objections in opposition to and for dismissal of the application in hand have been filed by respondent no.1, vehemently resisting the transfer of the case from the court below as the application is based on flimsy grounds, having no existence in the eye of law.