R. RAGHUNANDAN AND ANR. Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - Petitioners Vice President-quality (South Asia) M/S Glaxosmithklin Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and C& F agent respectively have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 561-A Cr.P.C for quashment of a criminal complaint titled "Drug Inspector v. Devinder Kakkar and others " against them pending before the Court of Second Additional Munsiff, Jammu.

(2.) In the petition, it is stated that respondent No.1 filed a criminal complaint in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu which was transferred to the Court of Sub Registrar, Jammu under section 18(2) of the Drugs& Cosmetics Act. In the complaint it was alleged that a sample of Cobadex Capsules being Batch No.M.D-439 M/s Glaxosmithklin Pharmaceuticals Ltd., works address 49 (B &C) Bommandra Industrial Area Amakal Taluk, Banglore District had having its Registered office at Mumbai (Maharashtra) was lifted for the purpose of Test& Analysis under section 23 of the Drugs& Cosmetics Act from the premises of respondent No.2 M/s Sudershan Trading Co., Ragunath Pura, Jammu on 06.02.2003. It is further alleged that a copy of intimation on Form 17 for the purpose of lifting of Sample along with one portion of the sealed sample was delivered to respondent No.2 and another portion of the sample was sent to Government Analyst Central India Pharmaceuticals Laboratory, Gaziabad under section 23(4)(i) of the Act. It is also alleged that a report dated 15.01.2004 was received by respondent No.1 declaring the Drug sample i.e. Cobadex Forte Capsules Batch No. M.D-439 Sample not to be of standard quality. A copy of the Test Report of Drug Sample was sent to respondent No.2 by respondent No.1. However, respondent No.2 vide letter dated 07.02.2004 disclosed that the Drug has been purchased from respondent No.3 and after the receipt of aforesaid letter respondent No.1 further alleged that one more portion of the Drug Sample along with the copy of the report was delivered to respondent No.3. However, respondent No.3 vide letter dated 10.02.2004 submitted the sales and purchase record of the Drug and as per the record, GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals Ltd., were shown as the manufacturer of the Drug and as such respondent No.1 vide his letter dated 14.02.2004 sent a copy of the test report to petitioner No.2 who is the C &F Agent of M/s Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd.("the Company"). Petitioner No.2 then forwarded a copy of the said letter dated 14.02.2004 to the Company. Petitioner No.1 who is an authorized signatory of the Company vide his letter dated 01.03.2004 replied to the letter dated 14.02.2004. However, respondent No.1 did not take any cognizance of the said letter. On the basis of the Test Report dated 15.01.2004, respondent No.1 filed a complaint in question before the Court below. On filing of the complaint, the Court below took the cognizance and issued notices to the accused mentioned in the complaint i.e petitioners and respondent Nos.2 &3. It is further contended that the complaint filed by respondent No.1 is an abuse of process of law and have been filed in gross violation of the statutory provisions of law and the issuance of process on the basis of the aforesaid complaint has resulted into failure of justice. The complaint being misconceived and against the provisions of law is required to be quashed on the following grounds:-

(3.) On 03.06.2006, the learned Additional Advocate General has filed objections on behalf of respondent No.1 wherein it is stated a sample of Cobadex Forte Capsules Bach No. MD-435 duly manufactured by M/s Glaxo Smith Kline Pharmaceutical Ltd was picked up on 06.02.2003 from the premises of respondent No.2 for the purpose of test and analysis under Section 23 of Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940. A copy of intimation on form 17 intimating the purpose of lifting of sample along with one portion of sealed sample was delivered to respondent No.2 while another portion of the sealed sample was sent to Government Analyst Central Indian Pharmacoposis Laboratory, Gaziabad on form 18 culminating in furnishing of a detailed test report bearing No. IPL/8031/46 dated 15.01.2004 whereby the sample was confirmed as conforming to the standard quality. As per the mandate of Section 25(2) of Drugs and Cosmetic Act, a copy of test report was sent to respondent No.2 thereby seeking certain details from him. The respondent No.2 further informed the Drug Inspector that the sample in question has been purchased by him from respondent No.3. Accordingly, as per the mandate of Sections 23 and 25 of Drugs and Cosmetic Act, one copy of the test report and drugs samples were forwarded to respondent No.3 vide communication dated 07.02.2004. In reply to this letter respondent No.3 informed that the drug had been purchased from petitioner No.2 who is C &F of M/s Glaxo Smith Kline Ltd. The Drugs Inspector furnished a copy of the said report to petitioner No.2 also vide communication dated 14.02.2004 and finally after following all the legal formalities and specified procedure, respondent No.1 presented a complaint under Section 18 read with Section 2 of Drugs and Cosmetic Act before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu.