SANJEEV JAIN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INSTANT Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. is directed against taking cognizance of offences under sections 27 (b) (i), 27 (c) and 27 (d), for contravention of provisions in Sections 18 (a) (i), 18 (a) (vi), 18 (c) read with Section 16 (l) (a), 17 (c), 17-A (f), 170b (d) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ("the Act") vide order dated 29. 7. 1997 and summoning petitioners (accused Nos. 5, 6 and 7 in Cr. Complaint No. 23) 291/97 pending before Chief Judicial magistrate, Alwar.

(2.) PETITIONERS (accused No. 5,6 and 7 in complaint)are Directors of M/s. Welcome Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. (accused No. 3) ("company"), engaged in selling and distributing drugs and medicines manufactured in factory of M/s. Welcome drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (accused No. 8) situated at A-1129, RIICO Industrial Area, Phase-III, bhiwari (Alwar ).

(3.) ON 23,03. 1995, Drugs Inspector, Alwar visited Bansal Medical Store (Pharmaceutical Distributors)Industrial Area, Bhiwadi (Alwar) and purchased 4x 100 Tablets of oxyphenbutazone vide bill No. 4887/ dt. 23. 03. 95 having Batch No. T-117, manufacturing date November, 1994 and Expiry date October, 1997, and divided it into four equal parts in the form of its sample and thereafter sealed it accordance with Rules- one sample whereof was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst, Rajasthan, Jaipur, who in its report dt. 15. 09. 1995 opined that sample does not conform to the claim with respect to assay of Oxyphenbutazone as it contains phenylbutazone- Oxyphenbutazone found 64. 69 mg. Claim 100 mg. Phenylbutazone claim Nil found 37. 84 mg. A copy whereof alongwith one sample vide show cause notice dt. 04. 10. 1995 through registered post was sent by Drugs inspector to the Company (accused No. 3)and Brij Mohan Bansal Prop. , Bansal Medical store (accused No. l) who in response informed that sample of drugs was purchased from M/s. Welcure Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. (accused No. 3) vide bill dt. 23/3/1995-copy whereof was sent along with letter dt. 14/10/1995 while acknowledging analyst report dt. 15/9/1995. The Company (accused No. 3) controverted State analyst report dt. 15/9/1995 and requested for sending referee sample to the Central Drugs laboratory, Calcutta-as per its analyst report, sample was found to be misbranded under the Act as is evident from letter no. 252 dt. 28/5/1996 referred to in letter dt. 9/4/1997 (p. 111 of the record) which is written sanction from competent authority and accordingly, Drugs Inspector filed complaint on 29. 7. 1997 for prosecution against petitioners as well as other accused for offences (supra ). However, complaint was registered and learned Magistrate took cognizance of offences (supra) and issued process against petitioner (accused No. 5, 6 and 7) and other accused vide order dt. 29. 07. 1997. Hence this petition.