KRISHNA BALLABH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - (Oral) - A challenge to the order dated 8th Dec., 1995 framing charges so also the order dated 8th Sept., 1999 rejecting the revision has been made in this petition filed under Sec. 482 Cr.RC.

(2.) It is contended that on 22nd Dec., 1988 the Drug Inspector purchased 12 bottles of Tr. OPII (hereinafter referred to as 'the drug'). After purchase, it was divided in three samples each containing six bottles. The firm was given two samples and one sample was sent to the Government Analyst, Jaipur by the Drug Inspector. The Government Analyst, Jaipur sent the sample without marking analysis. The sample so received back was thereafter sent to Government Analyst, Central Indian Pharmacopaeia, Gaziabad on 22nd Jan., 1990. A report thereupon was received from Gaziabad on 15th June, 1990 and accordingly, an adverse report was sent to the petitioner firm on 28th July, 1990 (Ex.P/22). On receipt of the Government Analyst Report from Gaziabad, the petitioner firm made a notice under Sec. 25(3) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The aforesaid notice dated 14th Aug., 1990 (Ex.P.32) under Sec. 25(3) of the Act was given within a period of 28 days from the date of receipt of the report from the Government Analyst, Gaziabad. Pursuant to the notice, the sample was sent to the Central Drug Laboratory, Calcutta. The laboratory test report dated 19th Jan., 1994 was given beyond the period of five years of drug life thus, could not have been relied upon by the trial court for framing charges against the petitioners. A reference to Rule 96(1) (vii) of The Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') has been made to show that if any of the drugs is not mentioned in Schedule-P then its expiry date would not exceed the period of 60 months from the date of manufacture. It is thus, prayed that based on the report of the Central Drug Laboratory, Calcutta, the charges could not have been framed against the petitioners. Thus, the order framing charges so as the order passed on the revision may be quashed and set aside.

(3.) Learned Public Prosecutor supported the order framing charges and order passed on revision.