ROSHAN LAL GOYAL Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding as well as the order dtd. 13/12/2013 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Chaibasa in connection with Complaint Case being C/7-86 of 2013 whereby learned court has been pleased to find a prima facie case under Sec. 27(D), 18(a)(i) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 against the petitioners and accordingly took cognizance of the said offence and issued summons to the petitioners to face trial, pending in the court learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, at Chaibasa.

(2.) The complaint has been filed by the Drug Inspector alleging therein that on 28/2/2014 in presence of Child Development and Project Officer, Khuntipani, Store of M/s Aushadhi Bhandar, ICDS Project, Khuntipani, West Singhbhum was inspected and sample of Paracetamol syrup I.P, B.No.ML12-017 was collected for its examination. The sample was sent to Govt. Analyst, State Medicine Test Laboratory, Namkum, Ranchi, where the chemical examination of the said sample was done and the report dtd. 22/3/2013 was received and the sample was found not of standard quality as the oral liquid was not homogenous, which duly informed to the CDPO, Khuntipani, Singhbhum West and she was requested to make available the sale register of the said medicine and she was further requested to stop the sale/distribution/use of the said medicine. On 10/5/2013, the representative of the medicine manufacturer company had received a part of the sealed sample. M/s HLL Life Care Limited, Bekar Bandh, Gupteshwar Complex, Dhanbad on 31/3/2013 had provided the required document to the complainant. The manufacturing and distribution of the sub-standard medicine is hazardous and cognizable offence and therefore the present case has been lodged against the accused persons.

(3.) Mr. Mazumdar, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that lodging of the complaint, the learned CJM, Chaibasa has taken cognizance under Sec. 27(D), 18(a)(i) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 against the petitioners. He further submits that the petitioners are the Directors of M/s Maiden Pharmaceuticals Limited. He submits that there is no averments on the allegation in the complaint against the petitioners who are the Directors of the said company/firm. He submits that in view of sec. 34 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to be as the Act.), the persons who are Incharge and looking after the day to day affairs of the company is only required to be prosecuted. He submits that there is no averments in this regard.