CIPLA LIMITED Vs. STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the complaint filed by respondent No.1/Drugs Inspector against it alleging commission of offences under Ss. 18 read with Sec. 27(d) and Sec. 18 B read with Sec. 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940 and the proceedings initiated thereon.

(2.) It appears that respondent No.1/Drugs Inspector has filed a complaint for offences under Sec. 18 read with Sec. 27(d) and Sec. 18 B read with Sec. 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") against the petitioner and coaccused before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu and on the basis of the said complaint, learned Magistrate has, vide order dtd. 29/1/2010, issued process against the petitioner as well as other coaccused.

(3.) In the complaint it has been alleged that on 24/7/2007, the Drugs Inspector, Jammu conducted inspection of the premises of M/s Ajay Medicine Traders, a proprietorship concern of Sh. Ajay Gupta (coaccused) and he lifted the sample of drugs namely, Tab Norflox 400 and Tab Restyl 0.5 mg and in this regard he filled Form No.17 on spot. The sample was sent to the Government Analyst after its sealing and a report bearing No.CFDL/LS/Actt/tests/138/07 dtd. 25/4/2008 was received by the respondent/complainant, whereby it was conveyed that the sample of the drug namely Tablet Restyl 0.5mg is not of standard quality. Accordingly, co-accused Ajay Gupta was asked to submit purchase record and other relevant information and after getting the same from the afore-named co-accused, communication dtd. 14/10/2009 was sent by the complainant/Drugs Inspector to the petitioner's office at Jammu and copy of the test report along with drug sample portion was annexed with the said communication. Thereafter, purchase record was obtained and sanction for prosecution was also obtained in terms of sanction letter dtd. 7/2/2009. Again vide letter dtd. 28/11/2009, respondent No.1/Drugs Inspector sought details regarding total quantity of the drug received, names of the dealers from whom the drug has been purchased etc. After conducting investigation of the case, respondent No.1/complainant found that the offences under Sec. 18 read with Sec. 27(d) and Sec. 18 B read with Sec. 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940 of the Act have been established against the petitioner and co-accused and, accordingly, the complaint was lodged before the Trial Magistrate on 29/1/2010.