PIYA PHARMACEUTICALS PVT. LTD. Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition under section 482 CrPC, 1973 the petitioners being the incorporated company and its Directors, manufacturers of the allegedly misbranded drug, have approached this court seeking quashing of proceedings of the Complaint No.294/2012 pending against them in the court of learned CJM, Pratapgarh for the offences under Sections 16(a), 17(c), 17(B)(d), 18(a)(i)(vi)(b) and 27(c)(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.

(2.) Mr. Vineet Jain, learned counsel representing the petitioners, urged that sample of the drug named Sulphadimidine, manufactured by the petitioners, was seized from the vendor at Pratapgarh on 23.04.2009. Expiry date of the drug, as per the admitted prosecution case, was April 2010. The Government Analyst reported the sample to be sub-standard vide laboratory report dated 05.02.2010. The petitioners being the manufacturers were conveyed the report of the Government Analyst vide Drug Inspector's letter 07.07.2011, by which time, expiry date of the drug had lapsed. Thus, as per Mr. Jain, the petitioners' right to challenge the Government Analyst's report available under section 25(3) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act was infringed. He, thus, urged that the proceedings of the complaint are liable to be quashed qua the petitioners.

(3.) Learned Public Prosecutor though formally opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioner's counsel, but he too was not in position to dispute the above stated factual position that the petitioners were, for the first time, informed about the Government Analyst's report on 07.07.2011, by which time, the expiry date of the drug in question had lapsed. Since the petitioners were notified of the report of the Government Analyst indicating that the drug was sub-standard well after expiry date thereof, apparently, the statutory right available to them to challenge the Government Analyst's report as per section 25 (3) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act has been infringed beyond redemption. Thereby and in view of the law as laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Medicamen Biotech Limited and Anr. v. Rubina Bose, Drug Inspector reported in (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 20 , allowing the proceedings of the impugned complaint to be continued against the petitioners would be nothing short of gross abuse of process of law.