ASHISH DAMIJA MANORMA DHAMIJA Vs. UT OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this common judgment, two petitions, CRM(M) No.14/2021 filed by petitioner Ashish Dhamija and CRM(M) No.303/2019 field by petitioner Manorma Dhamija, are proposed to be disposed of. Through the medium of these petitions, the petitioners have challenged complaint filed by respondent Drugs Control Officer alleging commission of offences under Sec. 18(a)(i) read with Sec. 17(B)(d), 27(c), 36-AB, 124B and Schedule V S. No.3 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the rules made thereunder.

(2.) The record shows that the respondent Drugs Control Officer has lodged the impugned complaint against the petitioners and coaccused before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shopian. As per the complaint, on 23/1/2018, respondent Drugs Control Officer inspected the premises of co-accused, Shahnawaz Ahmad Khanday, who is stated to be the proprietor of Bismillah Medicate, Ringward, Keller, Shopian, and sample of the drug Biocenac-P B.No.ADT-02-1725 was collected from his shop. The said sample, upon analysis by the Government Analyst, was found to be of not of standard quality. During investigation, it was found that the drug in question has been manufactured by M/S Adwin Pharma Village Rampur District Sirmour, Himachal Pradesh. The petitioners herein happen to be the partners of the manufacturing firm. At the instance of the manufacturing firm, the sample under the direction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shopian, was sent to Central Drugs Laboratory, Kolkata, for re-analysis. After reanalysis of the sample, it was reported by the Central Drugs Laboratory, Kolkata, that the sample is not of standard quality. Accordingly, the prosecution was launched against the petitioners and other co-accused who happen to be the distributors and retailers of the drug in question.

(3.) The petitioners have raised a number of grounds to challenge the impugned complaint and the proceedings emanating therefrom but the main ground that has prevailed during the course of arguments is that the respondent/complainant has not impleaded the firm of which the petitioners happen to be the partners as an accused and that there are no allegations in the impugned complaint to show that the petitioners were the persons responsible for the conduct of day to day business of the firm in question, at the relevant time.